Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Staffordshire Asylums Bill (by Order),

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

St. Marylebone Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill (by Order),

Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.

Bolton Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till this evening, at a quarter-past Eight of the Clock.

Fife Trust Estate Bill [Lords],

Ordered, That Standing Orders 211 and 236 be suspended, and that the Committee on Unopposed Bills have leave to sit and proceed with the Bill forthwith.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill (by Order),

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Hampshire Rivers Fisheries Provisional Order Bill (by Order),

Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.

GLASGOW AND RUTHERGLEN CORPORATIONS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Glasgow and Rutherglen Corporations," presented by Mr. MUNRO; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.

STANDING ORDERS.

STANDING ORDER 4.—(Further particulars in case of Second Class Bills and certain First Class Bills.)

In cases of Bills included in the second class, and of Bills of the first class, in respect
to which plans are required to be deposited, such notices shall also contain a description of all the termini, together with the names of the boroughs, urban and rural districts, and in the case of rural districts the parishes from, in, through, or into which the work is intended to be made, maintained, extended or enlarged, or in which any land or houses intended to be taken are situate, and whore any common or commonable land is intended to be taken, or used compulsorily, such notice shall contain the name of such common or commonable land (if any), and the name of any parish in which such land is situate, together with an estimate of the quantity of such common or commonable land proposed to be taken or used compulsorily, and shall state the time and place of deposit of the plans, sections, books of reference and copies of the "Gazette" notice respectively, with the clerks of the peace and also with the officers respectively mentioned in Standing Order 29, as the case may ho. The provisions of this Order relating to boroughs shall apply in the case of London to metropolitan boroughs and the City of London.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. James Hope): I beg to move, to leave out the word "notices" ["such notices shall also contain"], and to insert instead thereof the word" notice.'
One word of explanation is necessary of the series of Amendments to the Standing Orders which appear under my name on the Order Paper. The object is purely the saving of expense. At the present time the promoters of private Bills are required to publish an immense variety of notices of the exact details of the proposed works. The Lord Chairman of the other House and his advisers, and I in this House and my advisers, have come to the conclusion that this is absolutely unnecessary at the present time—an absolutely unnecessary expenditure—and I trust the House will see their way to agree to these Amendments.

Mr. HOLMES: What is it anticipated will be saved each year?

Mr. HOPE: It is quite impossible to say, as it depends entirely on the magnitude and complexity of the Bills. In the case of an omnibus Railway Bill, for instance, the saving would be very considerable.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May we take it that there is no saving of public money, but only of the private money of the promoters of these Bills?

Mr. HOPE: That is so.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: Leave out the words
and shall state the time and place of deposit of the plans, sections, books of reference and copies of the Gazette Notice respectively, with the clerks of the peace and also with the officers respectively mentioned in Standing Order 29, as the ease may be,
and insert instead thereof the words
and shall state (a) that on or before the 30th day of November, plans, sections, and books of reference will be deposited with the clerks of the peace, and also with the officers respectively mentioned in Standing Order 29, as the case may be; and (b) that on and after the 21st day of December a copy of the Bill may be inspected and copies obtained at a reasonable price at the office or offices mentioned in the notice."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

STANDING ORDER 5.—(Particulars in Notices for Burial Ground, Gas Works, &c. Bills.)

In cases of Bills for constructing gas works. Or sewage works, or works for the manufacture or conversion of the residual products of gas or sewage, or for making or constructing a sewage farm, cemetery, burial ground, crematorium, destructor, hospital for infectious disease, or station for generating electrical energy, the notices shall set forth and specify the lands in or upon which such gas works, sewage works, works for the manufacture or conversion of residual products, farm, cemetery, burial ground, crematorium, destructor, hospital, or generating station is intended to be made or constructed.

Amendment made: Leave out the word "notices," and insert instead thereof the word"notice."—[The Chairman of Ways and, Means.]

STANDING ORDER 9.—(Publication of Notices in Gazettes and Newspapers.)

In the months of October and November, or either of them, immediately preceding the application for a Bill, the notice shall be published once in the "London," "Edinburgh." or" "Dublin Gazette," as the case may be, and m the following newspapers, namely:—

(3) In the case of a Bill authorising the construction of works or the taking or compulsory user of lands, or extending the time granted by a former Act for the construction of works or the taking or compulsory user of lands, in more than one county, or relating to an undertaking or to lands situate in more than one county, or promoted by a company or companies or other parties possessed of an undertaking situate in more than one county, the notice shall be published once in each of two successive weeks, with an inter-
val between such publications of not less than six clear days, in some newspaper or newspapers of the county in which the principal office of the company or companies or other parties who are the promoters of the Bill is situate, and in some newspaper or newspapers published in each county in which any new works are proposed to be constructed, or in which any lauds are intended to be taken or compulsorily used, or in which any works or lands are situate, in respect of which any new or further powers for the completion or taking or compulsory user thereof are intended to be applied for, or if there be no newspaper published therein, then in some newspaper or newspapers published in some county adjoining or near thereto: Provided always, that if the Bill relates to lands or works situate in more than one county, it shall be sufficient (at the option of the promoters) to publish in each of such counties so much only of the notice as relates specifically to the lands or works situate in that county, together with the short title of the notice and an intimation that the notice has been published in full or sent for publication in full in the "Gazette."

(4) No publication under this Order shall he made after the 27th day of November.

Amendments made: After the word "Bill" ["Application for a Bill"], insert the words
but not later than the twenty-sevenths day of November.

Leave out the words
once in the London, Edinburgh, or Dublin 'Gazette,' as the case may be, and.

In paragraph (3), leave out the words
that the Notice has been published in full or sent for publication in full in the 'Gazette'";
(4) No publication under this Order shall be made after the 27th day of November,
and insert instead thereof the words
of the name and date of publication of each newspaper in which the notice referred to in Standing Order 9 has been or will be published in full."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

After Standing Order 9, insert the following new Standing Order:

9A.—(Publication of Notice of the objects of the Bill.)

"in the Months of October and November, but not later than the twenty-seventh day of November, a short notice of the principal subject matters of the Bill (but without particulars except as required by Standing Order 66) comprising also the same statements (a) and (b) as are required under Standing Order 4, and a statement of the name and date of publication of each newspaper in which the notice referred to in Standing Order 9 has been or will be pub-
lished in full, shall be published once in the London or Edinburgh "Gazette," as the case may be."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

STANDING ORDER 11.—(Application to Owners, &c., on or before 15th December.)

On or before the fifteenth day of December immediately preceding the application for a Bill for power to take any lands, or houses compulsorily or for compulsory user of the same, or for an extension of the time granted by any former Act for that purpose, or to impose an improvement charge on any lands or houses, or to render any lands or houses liable to the imposition of an improvement charge, application in writing shall be made to the owners or reputed owners, lessees or reputed lessees, and occupiers of all such lands and houses, inquiring whether they assent, dissent, or are neuter in respect of such application; and in cases of Bills included in the second class, such application shall be, as nearly as may be, in the form set forth in the Appendix marked (A).

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: I beg to move to leave out the words "application in writing shall be made," and to insert instead thereof the words
notice in writing of the application shall be given.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have not the Standing Orders with me, but can the Chairman of Ways and Means give us some explanation of this and the succeeding Amendments, as to whether they relate to notices to householders who are affected by private Bills? There is a Special Order, I know, that requires notices to be given to persons who are affected, for instance, by a proposed Tramway Bill, and if these Amendments relate to those notices, I think we ought to have a little explanation before we pass them.

Mr. HOPE: My impression is that the notices to individuals remain the same, and that these alterations apply only to general public advertisements, and not to individuals whose property is proposed to be affected in any way. If the hon. Member has any doubt about it, I will put the remaining Amendments off till tomorrow.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should be glad if they could be put off till to-morrow, as I have not had time yet to look thoroughly into the proposed Amendments.

POOR LAW RELIEF (ENGLAND AND WALES).

Statement ordered," of the number of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief in England and Wales on the night of the 1st day of January, 1922 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 230, of Session 1921)."—[Sir Alfred Mond.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NEAR EAST.

OIL CONCESSIONS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Anglo-Persian Oil Company has negotiated the exclusive rights to drill for oil over the whole of Macedonia with the Greek Government; whether the concession includes the oil rights in Thrace; whether the future of Thrace is one of the subjects under discussion between the Greek, Turkish and Allied Governments; and Whether diplomatic support was given to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company in negotiating this concession?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The answer to the first part of this question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative. With regard to the third part, the frontiers of Eastern Thrace will no doubt be one of the subjects which will be discussed in the general settlement of the Near Eastern question. With regard to the fourth part of the question, His Majesty's Government accorded to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, in their negotiations with the Greek Government, the usual support, is always given to reputable British firms in their negotiations with foreign Governments.

Lieut.-Commander KEN WORTHY: While thanking the hon. Gentleman, might I ask him to make it quite clear whether any oil concession has been given for lands which are now in dispute between the Greeks and the Turks and which are being decided by the Allies in consultation—at least, I hope so—at the present time?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: My information is that no concession has been discussed or arranged in connection with Thrace, or any part of it.

ST. SOPHIA, CONSTANTINOPLE.

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any information as to the serious condition of the Church of St. Sophia, in Constantinople; whether it runs grave danger of destruction through want of repair; if it is a fact that its external nave is occupied by soldiers and ammunition kept there; and whether any pressure can be brought to bear upon those in control to safeguard this building, almost unique in its beauty and historical interest, from falling into decay?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: From various reports obtained by His Majesty's High Commissioner at Constantinople in April, 1921, it was clear that, at that time, the building, though not permanently secure, was in no immediate danger. The Turkish authorities appeared to be fully alive to the importance of preserving it. In regard to the third part of the question, I have no information, but inquiries will be made. In regard to the last part, no immediate representations appear to be called for.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

BRITISH RIVER TRADERS.

Mr. HANNON: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any protests have been made to the Chinese Government regarding the numerous illegal imposts on British river traders made by unauthorised bodies in the undisturbed parts of the country?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am afraid I am unable to answer this question without more specific information regarding the cases which the hon. Member has in mind.

BOXER INDEMNITY.

Mr. MALONE: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any decision has yet been reached in regard to the commutation and allocation of the sum remaining due in respect of the Boxer indemnity?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The reply is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

RE-ENGAGEMENT.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 6.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines are being, or are going to be, refused permission to reengage at the expiration of their first 12 years of service; and, if so, to which ratings and branches of the Service does this order apply, or will apply?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): It is not proposed to alter the rule that men who are of good character, and recommended, may re-engage to complete time for pension.

BATTLESHIPS (AIR ATTACKS).

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 7.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will confer with the Air Minister and consider the advisability of dropping 3,0001b. to 4,000lb. bombs within 20 feet of the side of one of the battleships detailed to be scrapped under the terms of the Washington Conference, the bomb in each case to be fitted with a delay-action fuse to detonate the explosive charge 30 feet below the surface of the water, and the battleship to be stiffened up below the water line or altered as necessary to meet as nearly as possible the latest requirements of the Director of Naval Construction for protecting battleships from explosive charges below the water line; whether the speed of the battleship can be determined before and after the detonation of the bombs: and whether one or two simple experiments of this nature can be carried out in conjunction with the airmen before sixteen millions of the taxpayers' money is expended on two capital ships it is understood the Admiralty now propose to have built?

Mr. AMERY: Progressive trials, designed to solve all relevant problems of the kind alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member, have been carried out for some time past, and are affording the Director of Naval Construction all necessary information.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: Have large bombs of that size been dropped on targets?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of no aeroplane being able to destroy any modern battleship, does that refer to torpedo-carrying aeroplanes, and does lie mean to say that 20 torpedo-carrying aeroplanes are not going to be able to sink any ship that is likely to be built?

Captain Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer he really gave is only in reply to a question as to whether these aeroplanes are capable of being operated at sea or not?

Mr. AMERY: I would not say that, given sufficient time, no aeroplane could destroy a battleship, but I do not understand that any aeroplane now in existence under ordinary Service conditions can destroy a battleship.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any reason why aeroplanes with torpedoes cannot be carried at sea, and have not been carried, and ought not to be carried at sea now?

Mr. SPEAKER: This cannot be argued at Question Time.

PRIZE MONEY.

Mr. LAWSON: 8.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that there is dissatisfaction among ex-service naval men as to the rate of distribution of naval prize money; and whether he can say when such distribution is likely to be completed?

Mr. AMERY: I have frequently explained the difficulties which face the Admiralty in this matter, both in reply to hon. Members' questions and in the Debate on the Navy Estimates on the 18th July. I can only repeat that the distribution is being carried out as rapidly as the staff available permits, and I am satisfied that faster progress is impossible. The general distribution is seriously impeded by the number of specially hard cases represented, but I am sure that it is the wish of the House that these should have prior treatment.

AIR UNIT.

Viscount CURZON: 9.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if there is any other country in the world
in which the Air Force unit working with the Navy is under the control of a separate Air Ministry?

Mr. AMERY: The answer is in the negative.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Was there any other country which, under a united Air Ministry like ours, did so well as we did in the War?

Mr. AMERY: I cannot answer that question.

DEVONPORT DOCKYARD.

Mr. FOOT: 10.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any inquiry has been made as to the time which would be required for the alteration of slip No. 3 at Devonport dockyard to enable a capital ship to be built there; and, if so, has consideration been given to the possibility of a three-shift system of work?

Mr. AMERY: It is estimated that if ordinary hours were worked, the lengthening of the slip to a sufficient extent to allow a capital ship to he built could be completed by about September, 1924. This time could no doubt be shortened if double or treble shifts were worked, but the expense would, of course, be much greater.

Mr. FOOT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is the possibility that this work might be carried out in nine months with three shifts?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir; I am not aware of that.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if they had begun this slip when I made representations to them six months ago, it would have been ready now?

Colonel ASHLEY: Did not my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) raise this question long before anyone on the other side?

Mr. FOOT: 11.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, seeing that the alterations of slip No. 3 at Devonport Dockyard to enable a capital ship to be built there would give employment mainly to unskilled workers, and that this work could he proceeded with without interfering with the work of the skilled artisans who would be employed
for many months in assembling the material for the capital ship before it could, actually be laid down, he will have these alterations put in hand; and, further, whether slip No. 4 at Devonport Dockyard could be extended to enable the new minelayer to be built there; and whether, seeing that this alteration and extension could be carried out at comparatively little cost and that this alteration of slip No. 4 would leave slip No. 3 free for the alterations necessary to enable one of the new capital ships to be built there, he will have the extension of slip No. 4 taken in hand immediately?

Mr. AMERY: As I have already explained to the House during the discussion on the Navy Estimates, the proposal to build the new capital ships in the Royal dockyards was fully considered, and it, was found that it would involve so much delay and extra expense, that it was decided to build them by contract in private yards where the necessary facilities already exist.

Mr. FOOT: Has it been taken into consideration that, before the ship can be laid down, many months may expire, during which time the slip might be prepared? Is it not true that at least nine months will have to expire before the ship can actually be laid down, because of the assembling of the material for it?

Viscountess ASTOR: And is it not true that we asked the Government six months ago to start the slip?

Mr. AMERY: All these relevant considerations were in the mind of the Admiralty, and we still decided that it was better to put out the ships to private contract.

Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the difference between the estimate, of the Superintendent of the Dockyard and that of the private contractors?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that, question.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: This competition takes up too much time.

Mr. FOOT: 12.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in placing the contracts for the new capital ships, it is proposed to stipulate any date for delivery and whether the Devonport Dockyard authorities will be given an opportunity of stating if the time required for the alteration of slip No. 3 would prevent them from building and delivering, one of the capital ships within the same period as allowed to the private yard?

Mr. AMERY: A date for delivery will be stipulated in accordance with practice. The time required to alter the Devonport slip would make it impossible for that yard to complete one of the ships referred to within the period stipulated for a similar ship built by contract.

Mr. FOOT: Is the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has given based upon information from the authorities in the yard itself? Is he aware that their information is in conflict with his own as expressed in this House to-day?

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not a fact that all these questions have been put by the hon. Member for Devonport, and answers given?

JUTLAND BATTLE (CHIEF-GUNNER SLIGHT).

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 13.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware of the case of Chief-gunner Slight, who was specially recommended for gallant conduct under exceptional circumstances, on His Majesty's steamship "Malaya," at Jutland, and who has been passed over for promotion to lieutenant and has received no British honour, though he has received foreign decorations; and if he can say why this officer's great and distinguished services have met with such inadequate reward while comrades of his who were standing by ashore have been promoted?

Mr. AMERY: Mr. Slight was among those officers recommended for commendation for their services in the Battle of Jutland, but was not recommended for early promotion. His name, as one of those recommended for commendation, duly appeared in the "London Gazette" of the 15th September, 1916. In the circumstances, his name was not considered for special promotion, and he had not reached his turn for promotion in the ordinary way when placed on the retired
list, at his own request, in May last. It is incorrect, therefore, to say that he was passed over for promotion. The action taken in this case, and in that of other officers, was in accordance with the recommendations of the Commander-in-Chief at the time, and the Admiralty, while fully recognising the gallant services rendered by this officer, regret that it is now impossible to re-open the matter.

SUBMARINE PAY.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 14.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can say that the risk of life in submarines is the same for all classes; if so, whether he will explain the differentiation in the new rates of submarine pay which gives to lieutenants 6s., warrant officers 3s., and ratings above able seaman 3s. 9d. per daily rate; and why warrant officers under these ratings receive less than that given to petty officers of the lowest grade?

Mr. AMERY: In fixing the new rates of submarine pay, no fresh scale has been drawn up, but the rates previously existing have in certain cases been increased all round by 50 per cent. The differentiation in the rates according to the rank, held is, therefore, no new factor, and has, indeed, been in force since submarine allowances were introduced in 1901. The present basic rates for officers were fixed according to the recommendations of the Halsey Committee in 1919, as one part of the whole scheme of pay and allowances, and that Committee, whose views were accepted by the Government, recognised that, in certain cases, junior officers, including warrant officers, might receive less pay than ratings, but saw no real objection to this.

ESTABLISHMENTS ABROAD (AIRCRAFT DEFENCES).

Viscount CURZON: 15.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether there are any aircraft defences to any of our dockyards, fuelling stations, or naval establishments abroad other than Malta?

Mr. AMERY: As regards anti-aircraft defences, I would suggest that my Noble and gallant Friend should put a question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. I am informed by the Air
Ministry that aircraft are available, if required, for the defence of Port Said, Suez and Aden.

Viscount CURZON: I that in addition to Malta?

Mr. AMERY: There are aircraft there.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that there are no aircraft defences at Singapore or Hong Kong?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, it does.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is disgraceful then.

NEW BATTLESHIPS.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is able to announce the decision of the Government as to the advancement of the date for the commencement of the two new battleships?

Sir GEORGE RENWICK: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether ii is intended to place the orders for the hulls, armament and machinery for two battleships before the Adjournment: and whether, considering the fact that the actual commencement of building cannot be proceeded with for some months after the orders have been placed, such orders might be given at an early date, so as to provide work during the coming winter for large numbers of men who may otherwise be unemployed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): Having regard to the finance of the present year, the Government is not in a position to anticipate the date already fixed for laying down these ships.

Sir G. RENWICK: Will the right hon. Gentleman further consider that the men engaged in shipbuilding and engineering would be better employed upon this work than upon relief works?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I agree that everybody would be better employed on their own work than upon work we have created for them. We have to take into account all the circumstances.

Sir G. RENWICK: We are very anxious that these men should not be dispersed.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it has been finally decided to lay these two battleships down in private yards?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does the Leader of the House not know that they can be built better in Glasgow?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

TRADE DISPUTES.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will invite the Committee, which he recently appointed to make inquiries with a view to devising means whereby the innocent victims of a trade dispute shall not lose their unemployment benefit, to issue their Report in time for amending legislation to be passed in the Autumn Session?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I feel sure the Committee will make their report at the earliest possible date. In any event, I cannot, at this stage, undertake to introduce legislation on this subject in the Autumn Session.

Mr. THOMSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that if the Report of the Committee be in favour of this being done, he will not be able to act upon that Report before next year?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Not necessarily. It means that I cannot at this stage say whether or not I will.

ADMINISTRATION (Cost).

Mr. W. R. SMITH: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the estimated cost per insured person receiving benefit per week of administering unemployment benefit in the case of a benefit paid directly through an Employment Exchange, and in the case of benefit paid through an association having an arrangement under Section 17 of the Unemployment Insurance Act., 1920; and can an explanation 'be given of the way in which the amounts laid down in the new scale of administration grants for associations were calculated?

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any inquiry
was made by his Department as to the cost of administering the State unemployment benefit by any of the large trade unions before the administrative grant was reduced; if so, what was the result of such inquiry; whether he is aware that the largest trades union administering State unemployment benefit, with a membership of over 400,000, has ceased to administer the Act owing to the reduction already in operation and in view of the fact that the new administrative rates are insufficient to cover even the bare cost of work done; and whether any of the trades unions have expressed their willingness to accept the Ministry's proposal?

Dr. MACNAMARA: As the answer is a long One, I shall be obliged if my hon. Friends will allow me to issue it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

I have had before me certain statements as to the payments made to branch secretaries for this work. But I am afraid I cannot regard these payments as determining the grant which should be made out of the unemployment fund. The grant is intended as a contribution towards the additional cost of administration occasioned by the payment of State benefit through an association already paying out-of-work pay out of its own funds. I have further to bear in mind that there is no saving of administrative expense to the Department when benefit is paid through associations. On the contrary, the grant to the associations is wholly an additional expense. As a matter of fact, before the revision of the rates, while each payment of benefit made direct by us cost about 1s. 2d., the cost through an association was about 2s. And even now, after the rates to associations have been so far revised, the administrative charge for each benefit paid through associations costs the fund about 6d. more than the corresponding charge where benefit is paid direct by us. Several trade unions, including one with a membership of over 400,000, have terminated their arrangements recently, giving the reduction in the grant as their reason. 140 associations with an estimated membership of 1,100,000 are continuing arrangements under the present rate of grant.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 2) ACT.

Mr. MALONE: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act will expire before the House reassembles, he has considered taking powers before the Adjournment in order to continue the provisions of this Measure or, if not, what steps do His Majesty's Government intend to take to deal with unemployment during the forthcoming winter?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1922, deals with the period up to 1st November next. The winter months are, however, already covered by other legislation, which provides for benefit up to a maximum of 22 weeks as from 1st November onwards.

STATISTICS.

Sir ROBERT CLOUGH: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give the figures of the unemployed, as recorded by his Department, on 29th July, and at the end of each fortnight during the preceding three months; and whether he possesses any figures enabling him to form an approximate estimate of those also unemployed but not registered with his Department?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The numbers of persons registered as unemployed at Employment Exchanges in Great Britain at fortnightly intervals during the past three months were as follow:
1st May, 1,617,082; 15th May, 1,553,745; 29th May, 1,471,434; 12th June, 1,443,088; 26th June, 1,405,293; 10th July, 1,371,534; and 24th July, 1,362,335.
There is no means of making a reliable estimate of the number unemployed who are not registered at Employment Exchanges. I have no reason to suppose, however, that this number is at all large relatively to the number so registered.

Mr. W. THORNE: Do the figures just given by the Minister of Labour include the men and women who are receiving payment as well as those who have exhausted their benefit?

Dr. MACNAMARA: They include all the men, women, boys and girls registered as unemployed.

NECESSITOUS AREAS.

Mr. MALONE: 32.
asked the Minister of Health the reasons why he does not
favourably consider the definition of a necessitous area as recently submitted to him by certain Poor Law authorities; and will he give consideration to a revised scheme embodying such modifications as he may suggest?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): It is not possible, in answer to a question in the House, to state in detail the many objections to the scheme referred to, but one fundamental defect is that the measure of relief which would result from the scheme is not adjusted to the needs of the area as measured by its total burden. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to a question on Tuesday, 25th July, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. W. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in consequence of the importance of this question, receive a deputation for the purpose of discussing the matter, seeing if we can arrive at a basis of what is known as a necessitous area?

Sir A. MOND: I have been considering that for a long time. Another attempt was made only lately to settle the question.

BENEFIT (ADNIINISTRATION).

Mr. T. THOMSON: 42.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the experience of the actual administration of the one-week gap period in the payment of unemployment benefit has shown that it has imposed a considerable amount of extra elerical work upon all boards of guardians, in addition to causing serious disaffection amongst the insured, as well as throwing a heavy extra burden on the local rates; and will he therefore advise the Cabinet Committee on Unemployment to propose legislation to amend this Section of the Act?

Sir A. MOND: No, Sir. I have not received any representations to the effect suggested in the first part of the question, and I am unable to recommend further amending legislation on this subject.

CABINET COMMITTEE.

Sir R. CLOUGH: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes during the Recess to publish the Report of the
Cabinet Committee on the question of unemployment; and whether the Cabinet Committee, which is reviewing the whole position of trade and unemployment, will investigate the reasons for high prices in certain of the chief industries of the country, more especially coal?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the first part of the question, it is not customary to publish reports of Cabinet Committees. In reply to the second part of the question, the Cabinet Committee has been appointed to review the whole position of trade and employment. It will make all the inquiries which it may consider necessary, but I cannot say in detail what these inquiries will be.

TRADE BOARD MEETINGS (ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE).

Mr. W. R. SMITH: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the reduction of the scale of allowances in respect of attendances at trade board meetings has caused annoyance to the representatives of employers and workers on the various trade boards; whether the amount of the economy expected to be made by the reduction is estimated by the Ministry of Labour at £1,000; and whether, in view of the serious annoyance and inconvenience to which it has given rise, he will desist from this problematical economy?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers) on Monday last, of which I am sending him a copy. In view of the facts referred to in that reply, I am not prepared to increase the subsistence allowances payable to members of trade boards. I do not quite understand my hon. Friend's process of reasoning. If, while acting fairly to the interests concerned, we can save £1,000, surely, that is a desirable achievement.

BRIGHTON AQUARIUM.

Major BARNETT: 29.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to a proposal on the part of the Brighton Corporation to lease the Brighton Aquarium for the term of 60 years for the purposes of a motor
char-à-banc garage; whether he is aware that this proposal has aroused strong public opposition on the ground that the amenities of the Brighton sea-front are endangered by it; and whether, in view of this widespread feeling, he will direct the holding of a public inquiry before sanctioning the proposed lease?

Sir A. MOND: Yes, Sir. A public local inquiry will be held before any decision is given.

DEATHS FROM STARVATION.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 30.
asked the Minister of Health the number of persons who were found by the verdict of a coroner's inquest to have died of starvation, or to have had their deaths accelerated by privation in England and Wales in the year 1921: and will he state their ages and sex, the dates of the inquests, and the names of the unions and counties in which the deaths occurred?

Sir A. MOND: I am sending the hon. Member a statement containing the information lie desires.

Mr. BRIANT: Will that statement contain any facts as to whether these persons who have died have received, or have applied for, Poor Law relief?

Sir A. MOND: I should think it probably will.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES' SCHEMES.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 31.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the figures in the Registrar-General's Report for 1920 showing that the marriage rate was the highest on record; and, in the light of this new information, is he prepared to withdraw his objection to local authorities completing their original building schemes under the Housing Act of 1919, in order to meet the largely increased need for more houses indicated by this increased marriage rate?

Sir A. MOND: I am aware of the figures referred to. With regard to the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to the answers already given to the hon. Member on this matter.

Mr. THOMSON: As this will be the last opportunity for some months to put a question, does the right hon. Gentleman say that nothing is to be done for the next three months to relieve the congestion that is still in existence in regard to housing?

Sir A. MOND: My hon. Friend is aware that 50,000 houses that are in process of being built will not be completed for eight months, and that will do a good deal towards relieving the congestion.

Mr. THOMSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that that is only one-tenth of what the Prime Minister promised?

RATES (REMISSION).

Sir W. de FRECE: 38.
asked the Minister of Health when the Cabinet will be able to consider, as suggested, the desirability of temporarily assisting private building enterprise by partial or complete remission of rates; and whether, since there is no time to be lost in promoting such inquiry, the municipal and other local authorities will be consulted and, in case of need, the necessary legislation introduced in the autumn?

Sir A. MOND: I am afraid that there are serious difficulties in the way of adopting any scheme of the kind, but I am carefully considering the suggestion, and if there appears to be a prima facie case for adopting it I should certainly wish to consult the representative organisations of local authorities at an early stage.

RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 39.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that there are a number of hardworking people who, by reason of their thrift, have been able to purchase a house to live in but who, under the provisions of the Rent Restrictions Act, are unable to obtain possession, either in whole or in part, of their property, while the tenants themselves are making a large profit by sub-letting and taking in paying guests; and whether he can see his way to put an end to such a state of affairs, either by amending the Act or by setting up local tribunals before whom cases of this kind can be heard?

Sir A. MOND: I have received some complaints of this nature and I propose
to bring them to the notice of the Committee which has just been appointed to consider the operation of the Act.

GRAYS.

Mr. WIGNALL: 40.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in the district of Grays there is still a waiting list of several hundred applicants for houses: that the Department recently gave consent to the erection of a further 25 houses by the urban district council; that, upon plans being submitted, the Department withheld its approval on the ground that the estimates were too high; that the local authority has pointed out that the figures given were estimates only; that it was proposed to carry out the work by direct labour, and that. every effort would, be made to keep the cost as low as possible; whether sanction has been given in other districts to the erection of houses without a limiting figure being fixed; and whether, in view of the admitted shortage of houses in the district in question, the proportionately large amount of unskilled labour which will be employed upon the houses proposed which are to be constructed on the Due-slab system, and that 1,020 men are unemployed in Grays alone and drawing unemployment benefit, he will reconsider this matter and give the necessary approval to the commencement of the work?

Sir A. MOND: I am aware of the general housing conditions in this district and of the position of the local authority's housing scheme. I have made arrangements for a deputation from the council to be received to-morrow, and the question of the particular houses to which the hon. Member refers will he fully discussed at that interview.

LUNATIC ASYLUMS (WOMEN VISITORS).

Sir R. NEWMAN: 34.
asked the Minister of Health the number of county and borough council lunatic asylums who have no women members on the visiting committees of their asylums; and how many women patients are detained in those institutions?

Sir A. MOND: So far as the Board of Control are aware, there are 58 county and borough mental hospitals which have
no women members on the visiting committee. In these institutions there are approximately 31,000 female patients.

EDMONDSLEY PARISH COUNCIL, DURHAM.

Mr. LAWSON: 35.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has yet received the auditor's report on the accounts of the Edmondsley Parish Council, county Durham; and, if so, whether he will indicate the nature of that report?

Sir A. MOND: The district auditor discovered serious defalcations on the part of the late assistant overseer, and the latter has since been convicted of forgery and embezzlement. The auditor's final report was deferred pending the trial, but he has made an interim report in which he states that he has come to the conclusion that the members of the parish council had not acted corruptly or been in collusion with the assistant overseer.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some few days ago the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gateshead (Brigadier - General Surtees) in this House charged this council with the misapplication of funds, and of expenditure without sanction? May I take it, in view of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, that that has absolutely no foundation?

Sir A. MOND: I did not hear the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman; but the district auditor, as I have said, has been into this question, and what he says would appear to bear out what the hon. Gentleman has just said.

Mr. LAWSON: May I ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, in regard to this matter'? May I explain—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put his point to me at the end of Questions.

At the end of Questions:

Mr. LAWSON: I was going to ask your ruling, Sir, on a question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Gateshead, which implied a serious charge against a certain parish council, as will be seen by the answer. In view of the
fact that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not in his place, I propose to waive my right to ask your ruling on the matter till such time as he is present.

RESERVOIR WORKS, ASHFORD COMMON (EMPLOYES' ACCIMMODATION).

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: 36.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the absence of housing accommodation for the workmen and their families employed upon the new reservoir works of the Metropolitan Water Board at. Ashford Common, Middlesex: is he aware that the accommodation provided is for 100 men, while the number at present employed upon the, works is 1,160: that Mr. C. Rodgers, the local sanitary inspector, has repeatedly called the attention of the local sanitary authorities to the subject without result: and what action his Department has taken to put the law in force in accordance with Section 11 of the Act of 1911 authorising these works?

Sir A. MOND: I have written to the hon. and gallant Member informing him of the result of the inquiries which I have had made into this matter.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: Mr. Speaker, the reply of the right hon. Gentleman is simply that he can do nothing, but there is an Act of Parliament that he is supposed to enforce: and the question with the Section has been put clown to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the actual powers that he possesses, and of which he does not seem to know: is that so?

Sir A. MOND: I have been looking into the question. The Metropolitan Water Board has to carry out the regulations of the local authorities, and the local authorities' sanitary inspector made certain recommendations which, I understand, are being carried out. If my hon. and, gallant Friend will read my statement he will find that a great deal has been done.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (BANK OVER-DRAFTS).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 37.
asked the Minister of Health how many local authorities, guardians and municipal, have, so
far as his information goes, been notified by the banks that the latter cannot permit any more overdrafts; whether he will give the names of each such authority and the poor and general rate in each respective case; and has he any evidence to the effect that the rates are being unduly kept down to relieve the ratepayers and in the hope that more State assistance will be forthcoming?

Sir A. MOND: The number of such, cases within my knowledge is quite small. I am sending the hon. Member a note of the particulars he desires. I think it is possible that in some cases the hope of a State grant has led to a reduction of the amounts raised by rates and so to an increase of temporary borrowing.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: 33.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can state what the estimated extra cost would amount to if, in estimating the means of old persons for the purpose of assessing the amount of their old age pensions, the value of their housing accommodation was omitted?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): There are no statistics available from which the desired information could be obtained.

IRISH OFFICE.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 43.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland why two assistant under-secretaries are employed in the Irish Office as compared with one in 1921–22; who is the additional secretary; when was he appointed and for what purpose; and if he will state why provision is made for the payment of salaries for a full year to these officials, while in the case of the Chief Secretary only six months' provision is made in the Estimates?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): In reply to the first and third parts of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to a similar question addressed to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith on 27th July
last, in which I made it clear that it is not the case that two assistant undersecretaries are employed in the Irish Office. In reply to the second part, the additional assistant under-secretary is Mr. Mark Sturgis, who is head of the Irish Office staff, the other assistant under-secretary, Mr. Cope, being employed in Dublin. As I have previously stated, the Irish Office staff, in addition to advising me in the matters for which I am responsible to Parliament, advises my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies in the Irish matters for which he is responsible, and for this purpose it is anticipated that their services will be required at least until the expiration of the current financial year.

Sir F. HALL: Considering the enormous number of duties that have been taken away from the Irish Office, and placed in the Colonial Office, why is it necessary to appoint an additional secretary?

Captain W. BENN: Can the Chief Secretary tell us at all whether there is any hope in the near or distant future that the office of Chie. Secretary and the attendant expenses will disappear from the Estimates?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: As I have repeatedly said "On the earliest possible occasion."

Colonel ASHLEY: Why, in view of the answer, does Mr. Cope not take his orders from the Chief Secretary instead of from the Colonial Secretary? Surely the person who pays the official ought to give him his orders?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Mr. Cope is paid by Vote of this House. He is a civil servant of the British Civil Service loaned for special duty in Ireland. He takes his orders from the Irish Secretary in matters relevant to the Chief Secretary's office, and from the Colonial Secretary in matters relevant to the Colonial Office.

Sir F. HALL: Is he charged on the Vote of the right hon. Gentleman?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, he is on my Estimates in reference to his duties in connection with Ireland.

Colonel ASHLEY: Suppose Mr. Cope gets one order from the Irish Secretary and another from the Colonial Secretary, whom is he to obey?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Government is supposed to be a united one!

RUSSIA (OIL CONCESSIONS).

Major BARNETT: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the statement that a monopoly concession over the Russian oilfields is about to be granted to a single oil group, he will take steps to discountenance any attempt on the part of a British firm or company to acquire such a concession over oil lands in Russia or Azerbaijan formerly held either by a foreigner or by a British national, except in cases where the consent of such previous owner has been first obtained?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information about the proposed concession of an oil monopoly. The attitude of His Majesty's Government on the matter raised in the second part of the question is covered by the terms of the Resolution passed at The Hague on 20th July, and contained in the last section of Command Paper No. 1724.

Major BARNETT: Will care be taken to see that the British owners of oil concessions in Russia receive the same protection under the international agreement as foreigners?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think my hon. and gallant Friend had better look at the Paper.

Major BARNETT: I have read it.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Well, then, there is the answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

EASTERN GALICIA.

Captain COOTE: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Supreme Council has asserted the right of Eastern Galicia to independent existence, subject to precise definition of its status: whether he is further aware that the Polish Government proposes to hold
elections in this country on 29th October as though it were an integral part of Poland; and what steps he proposes to suggest to other members of the Supreme Council in view of this disregard of their guarantee?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. My hon. and gallant Friend is perhaps thinking of certain resolutions passed by the Supreme Council at the time of the fighting in Eastern Galacia in June, 1919, the main object of which was to secure that the military occupation of the province by the Poles did not prejudice the ultimate determination of its status. Statements have been made to the effect that the Polish Government intend to hold elections in the province, but, I have received no official confirmation. The third part of the question does not therefore arise.

Captain COOTE: Is my hon. Friend aware that reports have appeared in the French newspapers to the effect stated in my question, and will he be careful to see that the occupation by Poland of this country does not result in its annexation by Poland contrary to the expressed will of the people?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will expect me to give a specific answer to these questions. I can assure him that all these matters are under the consideration of the, Government.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Could the Under-Secretary not instruct our representative at Warsaw to visit Galacia, in order to see the conditions under which the elections are to be held?

Mr HARMSWORTH: I do not think that is a practical suggestion.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: As our representative in Warsaw has already visited Galicia, why cannot he visit it again at a time when the elections are about to take place?

Captain COOTE: Is it not a fact that we have asked for a report from the Polish Government on the subject of the holding of these elections?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes, Sir, I think inquiries have been made.

IMPERIAL CONFERENCES.

Captain TERRELL: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will issue a return showing all the pledges given by Members of the Government on the occasion of the Imperial War Conference in 1917 and at subsequent Imperial Conferences, indicating those that were given with the express sanction of the Cabinet, those that were subsequently endorsed by the Cabinet, those that have been fulfilled, and those that remain to be fulfilled by legislative and administrative action, respectively.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The published resolutions of the Conferences in 1917, 1918 and 1921 will be found in Command Papers 8b66, 9177 and 1474, respectively, to which I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend. I do not think that it would serve any useful purpose to deal in detail with the other points referred to in the question, but much information may be obtained from the OFFICIAL REPORTS of the Debates and of the legislation passed both here and in the Dominions and India since the Conferences were held.

Captain TERRELL: In view of the high prices to-day of Government publications, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of publishing the pledges in a cheaper form as a White Paper so that they will be more readily accessible to the public?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The fact that the cost of printing is high is not a good reason for duplicating documents which are already in existence.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If the right hon. Gentleman would confine the publication to the pledges which have been carried out, the expense will not be very great.

HOME FOOD PRODUCTION.

Captain TERRELL: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the definite pledges given to British farmers in October, 1919, that home food production should be encouraged, the injury inflicted last year upon cereal growers by the failure to give four years' notice of intention to repeal the Corn Production Acts, and the risk that now exists of restricted production in the principal branch of the
agricultural industry namely, stockbreeding, he will consider the desirability of immediately adopting an agricultural policy which will confer a greater measure of stability on the industry?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Government have definitely abandoned any policy which involves interference by the State in the business of farming. Their present policy is to encourage home food production by extending and developing the provision of agricultural research and education, for which an additional sum of £1,000,000 was voted by Parliament last year, and by endeavouring to give some relief from the burdens which agriculture has to bear, such as has been granted this year in connection with Income Tax assessments. I hope that this policy may be continued by all parties as the best means of assisting agriculture, and that by such means the industry will be given stability and confidence to develop on its own lines without undue interference by the State.

Captain TERRELL: Does the Government consider that the position of the agricultural industry in this country today is satisfactory, and, if so, do they think that to-day's position has been brought about by the agricultural policy of the Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No. Sir: I do not think that to-day's position has bean brought about by the agricultural policy of the Government, nor do I think that the present position of agriculture is more satisfactory than the general condition of the industries throughout the country. We are suffering from world conditions which we may do something to alleviate, but the position can only be put right by the common action of many nations.

FRENCH DEBT (GREAT BRITAIN).

Major BIRCHALL: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether, before he consents to write off France's war debt to this country, he will, in the interests of world peace, endeavour to secure a substantial modification in her submarine policy?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: would ask my hon. Friend to await the statement that will be made during the Debate on the Appropriation Bill.

MINERS (HOURS OF LABOUR).

Captain GEE: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the temporary demand for coal for export, and the necessity for alleviating the distress amongst the miners, he will recommend to Parliament a temporary suspension of the Seven Hours Act in order to enable the miners to take advantage of the present trade to the fullest?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): I have been asked to reply. In the absence of any expressed desire on the part of the representatives of those employed in the mining industry, I am not prepared, in present circumstances, to introduce the legislation suggested.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the best coilieries in Durham are still working short time in spite of these orders?

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

REE STATE CONSTITUTION.

Sir F. HALL: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether any time limit has been imposed within which the terms of the proposed Irish Free State Constitution shall he submitted for approval by the Imperial Parliament; and, if not, will he state whether it is the intention of the Government to allow the existing anomalous relations between Great Britain and Southern Ireland to continue indefinitely, having regard to the fact that these conditions, while involving this country in heavy financial obligations, deprive it of any of the powers of governmental control given to it under the Treaty?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to Article 17 of the Schedule to the Irish Free State Agreement Act, which provides for the continuance of a Provisional Government, pending the constitution of an Irish Free State, for a period not exceeding 12 months, from 6th December, 1921. In reply to the second part of the question, I am not aware that any delay in the constitution of the Free State involves this country in any financial obligations which would not otherwise arise.

Sir F. HALL: Are we to understand that the time limit of the 6th December,
which will expire in about three or four months, will be strictly adhered to by the Government?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have tried to answer the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question in language which is customary in this House.

Sir F. HALL: I am perfectly conversant with the date, but we should like to know whether that date is going to be adhered to or not.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is not the universal belief in Ireland that all the destruction of property which is taking place in the South of Ireland will ultimately be paid for by the British taxpayer; and will the Government definitely announce to the Provisional Government that they do of intend to pay any of it?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know where that comes in on this question.

BRITISH SUBJECTS.

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether an Englishman, Scotchman, or Welshman, who has not been domiciled in the Irish Free State for seven years before the coining into operation of the Constitution, will, as a British subject, have the same rights and privileges in the Trish Free State as an Irish citizen created so by virtue of Article 3 of the Draft Constitution?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer is in the negative. I must refer the hon. Member of my answer to his question of 6th July on this subject.

Mr. MURRAY: But is that an answer to the question? I have asked whether British subjects will have the same rights and privileges in the Irish Free State as an Irish citizen? The answer is "No." May I ask how it is the right hon. Gentleman gave an answer a few days ago in which he said that a British subject would not be a foreign subject in the Trish Free State when the Constitution comes into force?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have read the previous answer. There is no contradiction with the answer which I have just given.

Mr. MURRAY: By whom is the right hon. Gentleman advised?

MALICIOUS INJURIES COMMISSION.

Mr. ERSKINE: 66.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how much has actually been paid to the claimants so far under the awards before Lord Shaw's Commission sitting in Dublin; and what proportion does that sum represent of the total amount awarded?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: In reply to the first part of the question, no such payments have yet been made; the second part of the question does not therefore arise.

POSTAL SURCHARGES.

Colonel ASHLEY: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information that letters arriving in Dublin from Belfast with British stamps on them are surcharged the amount of postage; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): I have been asked to answer this question. No such information has reached me, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will supply me with specific cases, I will have inquiry made.

Mr. HALLS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of letters posted in Londonderry with the Irish Free State stamps on them, the recipients in this country are surcharged for them?

Mr. PEASE: I have not heard of such a case. I will inquire.

KENYA (GISHU RAILWAY).

Mr. RAFFAN: 61.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government will publish, as a Parliamentary Paper, the Report made by Colonel Robertson, in which he gave his reasons for advocating the Nakuro route for the Gishu Railway, and also the Reports of the technical advisers of the Kenya Government as the best route to he followed?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Edward Wood): My right hon. Friend sees no reason for incurring the expense of publishing the Report. Colonel Robertson's recommendation of the Nakuro route was supported by the general manager of the
Uganda Railway, by Colonel Hammond, the special commissioner sent out by Viscount Milner to examine railway questions generally in East Africa, and by the consulting engineers in this country, as well as by the Governor of Kenya, with the unanimous concurrence of his Executive Council.

BRITISH HONDURAS (BELIZE WATER SUPPLY).

Mr. HANNON: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government will consent to guarantee the loan to Belize, British Honduras, for providing an adequate water supply for the city on the condition that the materials are purchased in the United Kingdom, especially in view of the rival offers put forward by American firms?

Mr. WOOD: The question of the provision of an adequate water supply for Belize is receiving consideration. I may remind my hon. Friend that assistance under the Trade Facilities Act would be likely to raise questions of the control of the finances of the Colony, and, as my hon, Friend will be aware, such control in British Honduras rests with the unofficial majority of the Legislative Council.

MIDDLE EAST (COLONEL T. E. LAWRENCE).

Sir F. HALL: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, why the Colonial Office published the correspondence leading up to the resignation of Colonel T. E. Lawrence of his post in the Middle East Department: whether there have been any differences of opinion between himself and Colonel Lawrence on matters affecting British administration and policy in the Middle East; and will he state if it is intended to abolish the Department?

Mr. WOOD: The object in publishing the correspondence referred to was to make it clear that Colonel Lawrence's resignation was due to no difference of opinion on policy between my right hon. Friend and him. The answer to the last two parts of the question is in the negative.

Sir F. HALL: Considering that the brains of the Department have gone, is it necessary to keep the remainder?

AIR PILOTS (COST).

Viscount CURZON: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for Air how much it costs to keep an effective pilot in the air in France, United States, Japan and Great Britain: and whether there are any figures to show the ratio of ground to flying personnel in each of these countries?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): I regret that I am unable to give the information required by my Noble and gallant Friend so far as it refers to foreign powers. The information at my disposal is not sufficient to enable me to frame any estimate under either heading of his question, owing to the distribution of the cost of these foreign air forces throughout several Votes and the consequent impossibility of segregating the amount of money or personnel devoted solely to their air defences. As regards Great Britain, I would refer the Noble Lord to the Air Estimates and to the answer given to him on 6th July, in which it was stated that there were, at that time in the Air Force, 1,862 qualified pilots and 109 observers. In answer to the second part of the question, my Noble and gallant Friend will see that Vote A of the Air Estimates provide for an establishment of 31,176 of all ranks which, added to the number in India, namely, 1,838, gives a figure of about 17 Royal Air Force personnel of all ranks to every pilot.

Viscount CURZON: Is it possible to give the figures asked for in the first part of the question as far as they relate to Great Britain?

Captain GUEST: No, Sir. I have not the information which would enable me to give them.

CANADIAN CATTLE EMBARGO.

Captain TERRELL: 71.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, when the Canadian cattle embargo is raised, there will be protection, through special marking or designation, to the public against having this meat represented to them as home bred and raised; and whether, if
this cannot be carried out by law as it stands, the Government will consider the desirability of introducing the necessary legislation?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): The whole question in connection with the importation of Canadian cattle is at present under consideration, and I am unable to make a statement at the present time.

Lieut.-Colonel MORDEN: 73.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that there is a very good root crop this year and that store cattle are urgently required this autumn to consume same; and, seeing that the Irish supply is uncertain and suspect of disease, whereas the Canadian cattle coming from the ranges next month are in the best of condition to be sent here at once before they are put on winter keep and lose condition, and before the winter season handicaps traffic, as no legislation is required for the admittance of South African and Irish cattle, and that no quarantine is enforced for either, can he see his way to extend this privilege to Canadian cattle pending the passing of a definite Bill, according to the wishes of both Houses of Parliament?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but I am unable to agree that the Irish supply of store cattle is either uncertain or that the animals are suspect of disease. I have no power to admit cattle from overseas, whether from Canada or South Africa, into the United Kingdom, other than for immediate slaughter at the ports, save in the case of animals imported for exceptional purposes. A small number of Friesian cattle were admitted recently from South Africa for breeding purposes, but they were subjected to four months' quarantine. Legislation would be required for the admittance of store cattle from any country outside the United Kingdom.

Colonel ASHLEY: Seeing that these excellent Friesian cattle were subjected to four months' quarantine, does the right hon. Gentleman propose that the same quarantine shall be put on Canadian cattle if and when they come in?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: That matter will have to be considered by the Government as a whole. I cannot possibly make any statement on it.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Is there any doubt in the mind of the Government that they have to carry out the Resolution passed by this House?

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL.

Colonel MILD MAY: 72.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the resolution extensively circulated by the Fly Fishers' Club, protesting against the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill on the ground that it legalises pollution; and whether he contemplates moving such an Amendment to the Bill during the Report stage as will allay the fear to which the resolution gives expression?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have since received a copy of a Resolution passed at a special meeting of the general committee of the Fly Fishers' Club repudiating the former Resolution which I understand to have been irregularly passed by a few members of the club who were misinformed as to the exact provisions of the Bill. I am not aware of any provision of the Bill which would legalise pollution, and, so far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, I have no Amendment to suggest.

STATUE TO MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN.

Sir R. CLOUGH: 74.
asked the hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he can make any statement as to the progress made towards the agreed-on erection of a statue of the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain in the Lobby of the House?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. GILMOUR (for the First Commissioner of Works): Mr. John Tweed is now working on the statue, which he anticipates will be completed next year, but I cannot give an exact date.

LOCAL TAXATION (SCOTLAND).

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: 75.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is now
in a position to make a statement on the Report of the Departmental Committee on local taxation in Scotland as to what steps he proposes to take to bring it into force and to what extent?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I regret that, as I am still in communication with the various Departments concerned regarding the matters dealt with in the Report of the Committee, my anticipation that I might be in a position to make a statement on the subject before the Recess has not been realised.

Mr. MURRAY: Can my right hon. Friend say when he proposes to snake a statement to the House? Can he not give a definite date? Does he not know that the whole of Scotland waiting for the statement?

Mr. MUNRO: I am well aware of the importance and also of the complexity of the question. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree with me that ill-considered legislation on this matter would be worse than none at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

KNIGHTSBRIDGE BARRACKS.

Mr. ERSKINE: 76.
asked the Secretary-of State for War whether it is contemplated to dispose of the barracks at Knightsbridge and the land upon which they stand; and, if so, to what other quarters the Guards will be transferred?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part, therefore, does not arise.

PENSION (QUALIFYING SERVICE).

Viscount WOLMER: 78.
asked the Secretary of State fen whether service in the Army prior to 18 years of age is reckoned as service towards limited engagement but not as qualifying service towards pension; if so, whether he is aware that a warrant officer who enlisted as a boy of 14 may be compelled to retire at the age of 35 with a pension of about £1 4s. per week, whereas one who enlisted at 18 can remain until he is 39 and retire with a pension of about £1 13s. per week: if so, whether he will state the justifica-
tion for penalising soldiers to the extent of 1s. 4d. per day for the remainder of their life because they enlisted as boys; and whether he is aware that the great majority of boys who enlist are soldiers' sons, born and bred in the Service, often with several gene rations of service tradition behind them?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: It is the case that service under the age of 18 reckons for the purpose of fixing the date, but not the rate, of pension, and in given circumstances the effect of the regulation might be as stated in the question. I cannot agree to alter the rule that boys' service is not rated for pension as the equivalent of men's service, and the only question that arises is whether a soldier with service under the age of 18 can be permitted to serve beyond the termination of his 21 years' engagement. As explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West, on 14th March last it has up till now been impossible to allow continuation in the service beyond 21 years for the sole purpose of making up the period of boys' service, but I have arranged for a relaxation of the rule forbidding extensions in the Service beyond 21 years in proper cases, and soldiers with service under the age of 18 will be eligible for consideration for such extension.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

WAR OFFICE.

Captain LOSEBY: 79.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he has decided that because a man was in an exempted occupation during the War, or in a low medical category, he is therefore exempt from substitution; whether he is aware that neither of these reasons are admissible under the terms of the Lytton Report; whether representations have been made to him by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that he should substitute the non-service publicity officers retained in his Department; and why he has not accepted the advice of the Treasury and joint substitution board in this matter?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative and that to the second part is
in the affirmative. In regard to the remainder of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the replies which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Moss Side and Harborough on 19th and 27th June respectively.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (PRESS OFFICER).

Captain LOSEBY: 93.
asked the Minister of Pensions the nature of the pensionable post relinquished by the non-service man appointed as Press Officer in his Department; what was the special experience which has been said to fit him for publicity work; whether he had previously been engaged on Press work of any sort what is the name of this official: by what. authority was he given a guarantee that his post would be for five years; why was this preferential treatment extended to a non-service man when ex-service men are only employed on a precarious tenure from month to month; whether, on the expiry of this term, he intends to continue the post: and will he then guarantee that an ex-service man shall be appointed?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I am afraid I can add nothing on this subject to the replies given to previous questions on the 14th June, 1921, and on the 29th March and 28th June last, of which I am sending copies to the hon. and gallant Member, except that the officer in question is a journalist of long experience with exceptional knowledge of pension work. I cannot pledge myself to any particular course of action when his present engagement expires.

ENEMY ACTION CLAIM (MR. J. DUNCAN).

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 84.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. James Duncan, of Kirkdale, Liverpool, who suffered loss of effects, value £32 10s., as a result of his ship being torpedoed in November, 1916, and who has consequently been kept waiting for settlement of his claim for nearly six years; and will he say how much more time is likely to elapse before this man can obtain a decision and settlement of compensation due to him?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W, Mitchell-Thomson): Mr. Duncan received £15 under the Board of Trade insurance scheme in respect of the loss in question. His claim for the balance will be dealt with by the Royal Commission on Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action, together with other similar claims, but I am unable to say when an award will be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

NON-ATTENDANCE PROSECUTION, SLOUGH.

Sir C. KUNLOCH-COOKE: 86.
asked the President. of the Board of Education whether his attention has been directed to the proceedings before the Slough magistrates in a prosecution for nonattendance at school of a girl of 14 whose parents had found her a useful position as nursemaid; whether he is aware that the school term had only one week to run, at the end of which the girl would have been free to leave in the ordinary course of events: and whether he will see that the taxpayers' money is not wasted and our education system brought into disrepute by prosecutions of this kind?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I have no information as regards the case referred to by the hon. Member. I presume that proceedings were taken in view of Section 9 (1) of the Education Act, 1918, which provides that if a child who is attending a public elementary school attains any year of age during the school term he shall not, for the purpose of any enactment or bye-law relating to school attendance, he deemed to have attained that year of age until the end of the term.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this case was cited in the newspapers at very great length, and if the officials of his Department read the papers he would be in a position to give me a proper answer? Why does not the right hon. Gentleman reply?

Mr. FISHER: I have already answered the question. I have said I have no information with regard to this case.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Why have you not?

PROVISION OF MEALS.

Mr. W. THORNE: 87.
asked the President of the Board of Education if, seeing that it is a statutory obligation of the Government under the Provision of Meals Acts, 1906 to 1914, to pay half of the expenditure on the provision of meals and that the London County Council made an estimate for an expenditure of £317,000 for 1922–23 for this purpose, he can state the reason why the Board of Education was not prepared to pay to the London County Council more than £65,000 for the feeding of school children; what amount of money the. Government have granted under the Provision of Meals Acts, 1906 to 1914; and if he will take action in the matter?

Mr. FISHER: I may remind the hon. Member that the statutory obligation imposed upon the Board, under Section 44 (2) of the Education Act, 1918, to pay grant in aid of the expenditure of local education authorities, applies only to such expenditure as is recognised by them as expenditure in aid of which Parliamentary grants should be made to the authority, and for reasons which I stated in my reply, on the 4th April last, to the hon. Member for the Northern Division of New-castle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Doyle), the Government decided that the Board were not justified in recognising an expenditure under this head in excess of £300,000 for the current year. The revised estimates of local authorities for this service amounted to about £438,000, and, upon a review of all the circumstances, I did not see how I could equitably allocate more than £65,000 out of the available £300,000 to this service in London.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in consequence of the Board's cutting down of expenditure under this Act, much distress will be caused, and many thousands of poor children will go without any meal at all for days together?

Mr. FISHER: I have no reason to think that such a result will follow as is imagined by the hon. Member.

PENNY POSTAGE.

Mr. ERSKINE: 82.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he can inform
the House what effect the reduction in postal rates has had on the Post Office revenue; and whether he can see his way to restore penny postage at an early date in order to help trade revival?

Mr. PEASE: I would refer the hon. Member to my answer of the 11th July to a similar question put by the hon. Member for Acton.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

DEPENDANTS' PENSIONS.

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 98.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many widows to date have been refused pensions because their husbands have died more than seven years after discharge from the forces, notwithstanding that death was directly attributable to wounds, injury, or disease due to service?

Mr. LAWSON: 94.
asked the Minister of Pensions in how many cases the dependants of ex-soldiers have been refused pensions owing to the application of the seven years' limit as laid clown in the Royal Warrant of June, 1922?

Major TRYON: I am afraid I am unable to state the precise number of cases of widows who have been found ineligible for pension under Article 11 of the Royal Warrant, but I understand that they are very few. I may, however, point out that all such cases are eligible for consideration with a view to pension under Article 17 of the Royal Warrant, and pending a settlement of the general question, which is receiving the close personal attention of my right hon. Friend, the cases that arise are being so dealt with.

Mr. LAWSON: 95.
asked the Minister of Pensions in how many cases dependants of ex-soldiers have been refused pensions on the ground that the family income did not justify the granting of a pension?

Major TRYON: I am afraid that the records of the Ministry do not enable this information to be given.

OVERPAYMENTS (RECOVERY).

Mr. JOHN GUEST: 89 and 96.
asked the Minister of Pensions (1) whether he is aware that disabled men who were granted payments as advances or other-
wise by local pension committees in 1919 and later are being required to refund these sums on the ground of alleged irregularity; and seeing that the liability should rest upon the committees, and in view of the hardship which repayment will impose on these disabled men many of whom are unemployed, will he limit the retrospective action to a more recent date;
(2) if his attention has been called to the case in which it was decided by Mr. Justice Lush that an officer who had been paid a gratuity, which later was alleged to have been too much, was not compelled to refund it because the mistake had not been his; and whether it is his intention to apply this decision to the many cases in which deductions are at present being made from pensions on the grounds that at some previous period the pensioner had been paid too much, although the overpayment was entirely the fault of the Ministry or its officials?

Major TRYON: We have no power to pay pensions or allowances at rates in excess of those authorised by the Royal Warrants, and recovery of overpayments is a matter of general principle of administration common to the whole public service. In every case, however, the most careful consideration is given to the individual circumstances of the case, and where it is clear that the erroneous award was one of which the pensioner could not have been aware, and hardship would be involved, recovery may be, and often has been, waived. The question of the liability of the officer or other agent responsible for the overpayment is also fully considered, and in certain cases surcharges are made. I may add that we are considering the question of a time limit in relation to the recovery of overpayments made in the past.

Mr. GUEST: Is not an award of pension absolutely the legal right of the pensioner, and by what legal right is any deduction made?

Major TRYON: The fact that a man has a legal right to a certain payment does not give him a legal right to demand something in excess of that amount.

Mr. GUEST: I am speaking of the deduction. By what legal authority is the deduction made?

Major TRYON: The matter is perfectly in accordance with the Royal Warrant. A man is only entitled to receive the total amount which he should get.

SPECIAL DIET ALLOWANCE.

Mr. KENNEDY: 90.
asked the Minister of Pensions the average number of disabled men who received special diet or allowance for this purpose during the three months ended 31st March, 1922; the number of such cases during the week ended 22nd July, 1922; and the percentage of such cases in which the disablement was certified as tuberculosis?

Major TRYON: I regret that figures for the precise periods referred to are not available, but during the three months, March, April and May, the average number in receipt of special diet allowances was about 6,700, and in June was about 4,200. Of the former figure, 85 per cent., and of the latter, 95 per cent., were cases of tuberculosis.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: (by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House whether he is aware that the Local Government and other Officers' Superannuation Bill has now passed through all its stages in both Houses, except for some formal drafting Amendments which have been made in another place and which have to be considered by this House, and whether, in these circumstances, he is prepared to give time for the final stage of this Bill this Session, so that it may become law before the House adjourns?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Very strong representations have been made to me, not only in regard to the Local Government and other Officers' Superannuation Bill, but also on the subject of the Ecclesiastical Tithe Rentcharges (Rates) Bill. I am placed in some difficulty, which the House will see, because I have made a statement to the House, and I am very anxious to keep, in the spirit, at any rate, all such statements as to business. In my statement on the 25th July with regard to business, I definitely stated that the Government could not afford facilities for private Members' Bills during the remainder of this portion of the Session, reserving the question of the
Autumn Session for a later decision; and I have, naturally, hesitated to comply with these urgent requests. I think, how ever, that the House will agree that these two Bills stand in a different position from all the other private Members' Bills as they have passed through all their stages in this House, and only require consideration of the Lords Amendments
As regards the Bill mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I have satisfied myself, as far as I can, by inquiry through the usual channels, that there is agreement as to the treatment of the Lords Amendments, and that no controversy will arise. I do not mean that there will be agreement with the Amendments made in another place, but that there will be agreement in this House as to the proper method of treating the Amendments made in another place. I believed, until a few minutes ago, that the same thing applied to the other Bill which I have mentioned, but within the last few minutes I have seen reason to doubt whether that is so, and I cannot, therefore, speak with confidence; but if agreement is reached, among those interested, in time, and if it, proves to be the case that no controversy arises in this House on either of these Bills, then I should propose to give an opportunity for their consideration to-morrow night: but it can only be on the clear understanding that no controversy arises, and that no objection is taken to this variation from the programme which I announced to the House the other day, and by which I am boned if any hon. Member, or any section of opinion in the House, desires to hold me to it.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: With regard to the Ecclesiastical Tithe Rent-charges (Rates) Bill, if it can be passed without controversy, so much the better, but I have not had an opportunity of fully considering what the Lords Amendments really mean, and it is all subject to that consideration.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Most certainly. What I understood was that those in charge of the Bill in this House thought that many of the Amendments—controversial Amendments introduced in the other House—were wrongly imported into the Bill and could not be sustained, and that they themselves would either move or agree in their rejection, and that,
therefore, controversy would arise; but I shall not take either Bill if I have any indication that the House thinks that it is a breach of faith with it, or if I have any indication that controversy will be aroused by them.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Might we be informed if the Government intend taking any business after the Appropriation Bill to-night?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, there is an Amendment down from another place to the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill. That is all.

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SEPARATION AND MAINTENANCE) BILL.

"to amend the Married Women (Maintenance) Acts, 1895 and: 1920, and Section five of the Licensing Act, 1902," presented by Mr. SHOUT: supported by Sir Ernest Pollock and Sir John Baird: to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. (Bill 226.]

FIFE TRUST ESTATE BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill to be read the Third time.

TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT OF DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN.

Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 170.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

War Service Canteens (Disposal of Surplus) Bill,

Railway and Canal Commission (Consents) Bill,

Post Office (Parcels) Bill,

Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Bill, without Amendment.

Amendments to—

Electricity (Supply) Bill [Lords],

Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill [Lords],

Black Country Tramways and Light Railways Bill [Lords],

Cambridge Corporation Bill [Lords],

without Amendment.

Constabulary (Ireland) Bill,

That they do not insist on their Amendments to which this House has disagreed, and they agree to the Amendments made by this House to their Amendments.

Allotments Bill [Lords],

That they agree to certain of the Amendments made by this House, without Amendment they agree to one Amendment, with an Amendment, to which they desire the concurrence of this House; they disagree to one other Amendment, but propose an Amendment in lieu thereof; and they disagree to an Amendment, for which disagreement they assign a Reason.

PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.

Third Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

CIVIL SERVICE, INDIA.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: I desire to draw attention to certain very urgent questions connected with the present position and the prospects in the Indian Civil Service. I think the time has not yet come to debate the wider question, which, some time or other, will have to be debated, as to the events which have taken place since the passage of the Government of India Bill, but the time has come for considering the position which has arisen, as the result of the Act that we passed a year and a half ago, in the Indian Civil Service. At the very outset, let me make my position quite clear. I approach this problem with no sort of desire to question or criticise the policy of Parliament as expressed in the Government of India Act. I believe that policy was a right one, and nothing that I wish to say in connection with the Indian Civil Service is in any way intended to question that policy or to suggest that we were wrong in setting up the political councils and assemblies which were then set. up. Indeed, I go so far as to say that I raise this question expressly for the purpose of helping to make the Government of India Act a success, for I am certain that one of the most important factors for success in the policy embodied in the Government of India Act is an efficient and contented Indian Civil Service. I am quite sure that the changes which are sure to take place in the near future will depend not. a little for their success upon the loyal co-operation of a contented and an efficient Civil Service, which will year after year be able to attract to it a sufficient body of good recruits. What is the present position, as far as I understand it., in the Civil Service? I do not pretend to speak as an expert, but I have had some opportunity of discussing this question with men who are well qualified to speak upon it and they have convinced
me that at the present moment there is very grave anxiety and discontent in the ranks of the Civil Service. That that is so is shown by the fact that at the recent examinations fewer Europeans are presenting themselves. The House will see that that is a very serious fact. After all, if good recruits do not continue to present themselves in sufficient numbers year after year the Indian Civil Service cannot possibly maintain its efficiency. As far as I can see, the Civil Service is to-day suffering from two separate kinds of grievance. In the first place there is the general grievance that comes from a feeling of insecurity, and in the second place there are a number of specific concrete grievances.
4.0 P.M.
First, let me say a word or two about the general feeling of insecurity that at present is sapping at the efficiency of the service. Time after time the members of the Service have been assured that, whatever might be the policy of Parliament, individually they should not suffer. Assurances were given in the Montagu-Chelmsford Report and in this House, when the Government of India Act was passing. Assurances have been given time after time by the two last Secretaries of State and assurances have up to a point been embodied in the Government of India. Act itself. I need not quote the Sections from that Act, but if hon. Members wish to refer to them they should refer particularly to Section 96, where they will find it stated that individually the members of the Service will not suffer in their rights. I maintain that in spite of those assurances a great many members of the Civil Service in India genuinely believe that their pay is no longer as secure as it was before, that their pensions are not so certain and that it is doubtful, as constitutional developments lake place in India, whether the appointments that they now hold will be continued, and if they be discontinued whether they will obtain just compensation for having their careers brought to an end. Those suspicions have been increased by one or two definite things which have happened—for instance the conditions that the Government offer for premature retirement I do not think those conditions are sufficiently generous, but what perhaps is more important than that from the point of view of the
civilian, is that they have seen many debates raised and many questions asked in the new councils and assemblies suggesting that a great many of the members of those new assemblies consider that the Civil Service is no longer wanted at all in India and that the civilians had better pack up and go home. Rightly or wrongly, a great many of these excellent public servants do genuinely believe that their present position is insecure and that their future is doubtful. I should like to ask the Prime Minister, if he is to take part in this Debate, to make a, clear statement that in spirit and in letter the Government abides by the pledges that the individual Indian civil servant should not suffer from the constitutional changes which have taken place. Let me say a word or two about certain specific financial grievances from which the Service is suffering at the present time. I admit that certain of these grievances are not directly the result of the Government of India Act, but are the result of a number of other things that have happened since 1914. The Islington Report upon the Indian Public Services admitted that before the War the real pay of the Service had, during the last 20 years, actually diminished, and here I use the words of the Montagu-Chelmsford Report—
In the case of certain services, the need for improving the terms of the service is specially strong.
The Islington Commission made certain recommendations, which, after a long delay, were to some extent carried out. They amount to an average rise of 8 per cent. in the salaries and pay of the service. Since then two very serious things have happened. In the first place, the rupee has fallen from 2s. to 1s. 3d., and, secondly, the cost of living in India has risen from anything between 60 and 90 per cent. Therefore, even with the rise of 8 per cent. under the Islington recommendations, the Indian civilian is very much worse off to-day than he was when those recommendations were carried into effect. There is this further detail to be remembered. When the civilian wishes to go home on leave, he finds that the cost of his passage has doubled and trebled. To give a concrete example, while in 1914 he could get a passage comparatively cheaply, he now has to pay £130 for a second-class return passage for himself, and £260 for second-class return passages for himself and his wife. That
would be bad enough in itself, but the case is made much harder when he looks round and sees what has been happening in other public services during these two or three years. His own pay has been raised 8 per cent. as the result of the Islington Commission, but he looks to Whitehall and sees that the pay of the British civil servant has been raised a great deal more. Let me give an instance or two, so that the House may see at once what I mean. While the Indian civilian's pay has been raised only by 8 per cent., the pay in the Navy has risen since 1914 by 90 per cent. in the case of officers, and 153 per cent. in the case of men; in the Army it has risen about the same; and in the Civil Service it varies from a rise of 61 per cent. in the case of the higher divisions to 142 per cent. in the case of the lower divisions. If you go outside the Civil Service, you have rises of no less than 169 per cent. in the case of teachers in public schools, and 160 per cent. in the case of the police. Those facts are sufficient to show that the Indian civilian has a very real grievance. There is this further fact. If one takes as a basis of comparison two of the other foreign services, the Diplomatic and Consular Service, and the Colonial Service, he will see that in the case of the Diplomatic and Consular Service considerable extra allowances have been made to the officials where the exchange is against them, and where the cost of living is specially high, and that the Colonial official has his passage paid when he comes home on leave.
I think I have said enough to show the House that, from the point of view of pay, the Indian civilian is in a very bad way compared with the other public services. How can this grievance be remedied? I admit frankly that there are several very real difficulties, and, as I wish to put the case from both sides, I would like the House to look at those difficulties. There is the difficulty of finance, which is felt everywhere at the present moment, and particularly in India. There have been large deficits recently in the Indian Budget. There have been large increases in taxation. I am told that in 1921 additional taxation was imposed to the amount of 12 millions and in 1922 to the amount of 13 millions. Moreover, at this very moment there is actually a kind of Geddes Committee on its way to India
with the express object of cutting down administrative expenses. I admit that difficulty, and I admit certain other difficulties which have been put to me by representative Indians with whom I have discussed this question. They come to me and they use this kind of argument They say: "This is a transitional moment, and the fact that there is discontent in the service, and difficulty in getting new recruits may be a temporary difficulty, and things may gradually right themselves. We admit there have been attacks upon the Indian Civil Service in the new assemblies and councils, but have there not been equally bitter attacks in the British House of Commons upon your own Civil Service? You say that it is difficult to get Englishmen to enter the Service in the present condition. If that be so—and we admit that during the last year very few Englishmen have presented themselves for examination—how do you account for the fact that, between 1913 and 1921, while 222 Indians presented themselves for examination, no less than 1,777 Europeans did so? Those are points which in fairness have to be taken into account when this House is considering what action ought to be taken. I admit their strength and it is because I admit their strength that I am very anxious that this House should not dictate as to what India should or should not do.
I am very anxious, if possible, that the Government, in any improvements that it may make in the conditions of the Civil Service, should carry with it the big body of moderate Indian opinion. I do not at all want to suggest. that by taking drastic action here we wish to dictate to India, nor, on the other hand, do we wish to transfer the burden from the shoulders of the Indian taxpayer to the shoulders of the British taxpayer, and it is on that account that I should like, if possible, that this question should be amicably settled with Indian co-operation. After all, the Indian Civil Service exists not for the benefit of a few Englishmen, but for the good of the whole of India. It already consists of a number of Indians. They have just as much at stake in any improvement that is made as the Englishmen. If the grievances that I have put before the House were put practically and fairly to moderate Indian public
opinion you would have it behind you in the improvements that, I think, ought to be made.
I do not pretend to speak as an expert upon Indian questions. This is the first time I have ever ventured to trouble the House with a speech upon any Indian question. I am, therefore, very diffident in making any definite suggestion, but I would suggest to the Prime Minister that if I have made out my case that the Indian Civil Service is suffering from certain definite grievances that must be remedied, that if I have made out my case, that it is wise that the Government should have behind it the support of Indian moderate public opinion, then the best course for the Government to take would be to institute some special short inquiry into the case that I have tried to make. I do not mean by that a long inquiry carried out by some large Commission spreading over many years, but a special inquiry, however that inquiry may be constituted, whether it be by the Secretary of State, whether it be by my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State, or by a. small Committee, and, if possible, with the co-operation of an Indian member or an Indian assessor. Having taken the trouble to find out the opinion both of the Civil Service itself and of Indians of moderate views whom I have had the privilege of consulting, I say to the Prime Minister that, in my view, in that way we shall be able to remove these definite grievances to which I have alluded, and we shall be able to bring back some measure of security and contentment to the Service itself, and, perhaps more important than either of these two results, we shall be able to get the required number of geed recruits for maintaining the position of an efficient Service.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) has dealt with a very limited section of the British Service in India. He has dealt with the financial side of the Indian Civil Service, but there is something wider than that. There is not only the Indian Civil Service, but the whole of the British Service in India to be considered—the Public Works Service, the Medical Service, the Police Service, the Education Service, and the Agricultural Service, upon all of which the security and the maintenance and the
confidence of our position in India entirely depend. It is not only the financial position and the question of financial difficulties in regard to leave and boats mentioned by my hon. Friend, but there is a very real difficulty in the attacks that are being made upon the British Service of all grades and ranks, not merely the Indian Civil Service, but those employed in the Education Department and in the police, by Indian extremists, and, I am sorry to say, by members of the moderate section of Indian opinion as well.
With regard to our position in India, whatever view one may take as to the development of Home Rule for India, I am sure, judging from the speech which the Prime Minister made on India when he addressed the House a few months ago, that we do not intend that the painter should be in any way cut between this country and India. We intend to proceed with the great and magnificent work which we have undertaken in that country, and to develop it more and more, and until the day comes when the Indians are ready and able to take over complete Home Rule we shall provide India with a Government and with a service of Englishmen, to the advantage of India—a service of which India may well continue to be proud. The real difficulty is that the Indianisation of the Services is proceeding at such a pace that although we may frankly and openly say we intend to maintain our position in India, to all intents and purposes, if the Indianisation goes on to the extent which many Indian politicians desire, namely, to 100 per cent., we may just as well say we are no longer going to be responsible for India, if we are no longer going to have our own British servants in India to help us to maintain that position.
The Indianisation has been going on during the last few years with extraordinary rapidity. Under an arrangement which has been made, it is proposed that in the Indian Civil Service there shall be a 48 per cent. Indianisation. That is to say, one half of the Indian Civil Service will be Indian, and only one half British. At the present rate of progress that will be completed within nine years. Within nine years from today, though we shall be just as responsible for India as we are to-day, there will be 50 per cent. of the whole of the Indian Civil Service Indian, and only
50 per cent. British. Take the Indian Education Service. To-day it is over 37 per cent. Indianised, and the full 50 per cent of Indianisation in the Education Service will be completed long before the nine years which is required for the Indianisation of the Civil Service; in fact, it will be completed within a very few years. Take the Indian Service of Engineers, a very important service. There the Indians have already 38 per cent. of the posts, and the full 50 per cent. will be carried out before the expiration of the nine years required for the Indianisation of the Civil Service.
The Indianisation of the Agriculture Service is going on a little more slowly. There, the Indianisation is only 25 per cent. to-day, but the Indianisation of the Service is going along as fast as qualified Indian agriculturists can be found to take the places of the English agriculturists. There is one other Service, perhaps the most important of all, and that is the Indian Medical Service. The figures are very startling to those who think that India is still being governed by British officials. Since 1915, that is, in the last seven years, there have been 124 appointments to the Indian Medical Service, and 101 of these appointments have been of Indians, and only 73 of Europeans. The Indianisation of the Indian Medical Service is proceeding so rapidly that in many parts of India it is impossible for an English official or an English commercial man in the up-country districts to obtain the services of what we may call, without being offensive, a white doctor. The Indian Medical Service is really the key service of the whole of our services in India. If we are to continue to send out our young men to the Indian Civil Service, to the Education Service, the Police, and other Services in India, we cannot expect them to settle clown there for a period of years with their wives, and with the possibilities of families, unless we, if I might use the term, put the clock back in regard to the Indianisation of the Indian Medical Service.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not want to enter into a controversial question, but my hon. and gallant Friend must know that just as an Indian prefers an
Indian doctor, so a European prefers a European doctor.

Sir H. CRAIK: The Indian, if he be rich has an English doctor.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not want to labour the point. The thing is so obvious to anyone who has any connection with India or any relation serving there. It is clear that an Englishman does really wish, from quite proper motives, to have the services, if he can get them, of an English doctor. What is happening not merely in the Medical Service, but in regard to the other services, is that you are not now getting a supply of young Englishmen to take the positions. Sir William Vincent, than whom there is no greater authority in the whole of India—he is a member of the Indian Cabinet, and the Home Minister—speaking this spring in the Legislative Council, in the presence of numbers of his Indian colleagues, gave some very startling figures. I have quoted the figures before, and I am going to quote them again. They are so important that I want the Prime Minister to realise what is going on. I cannot give a greater authority than Sir William Vincent—
In the last examination for the Indian Civil Service there were 86 candidates. Of these only 26 were Europeans. There were 16 appointments, and only three were Europeans, one of whom has since retired.
You cannot keep up for the benefit of India, not for the benefit of Great Britain, the high standard of our English service unless you remedy the position disclosed there. I am about to make a statement which has not been given by me before. I do not know whether the Prime Minister is aware of the fact that conferences have been held quite recently in Oxford in regard to this very difficult position of getting young Englishmen at Oxford, Cambridge and the other great educational centres to volunteer to go in for the Indian examination. I will not tell the House what was the result of the Conference in detail, but I can say this, that the result was such as to give the greatest anxiety to those people who wish to see a continuous supply of the best blood of young Englishmen going out to serve their country in India.
The second question I want to put to the Prime Minister is something more
than the mere question of money. It is the question of the position which the British servant occupies in India, and the attacks which are being made upon them. Again I am not stating anything which is not well known in India. It has been stated in India over and over again. I can give no greater authority than by quoting a statement made by Sir William Vincent in the Legislative Chamber at Simla this year. He said:
It is an undoubted fact that the social amenities of every-day life have been reduced. There is an atmosphere of hostility in which our officers have now to work.
At this point some of the Indian members cried "No!" Sir William Vincent went on:
Who has the audacity to say 'No' to that in this Assembly? I challenge any member to deny that every district officer in present conditions is performing most arduous and difficult duties under almost intolerable conditions by reason of this hostility.
That is a definite statement by the Home Secretary of India, that all our young men who are going out to India have to perform their grave and difficult duties under almost intolerable conditions by reason of this hostility. Sir William Vincent went further, for at the end of the speech, speaking in the presence of the Indian members of the Legislative Council, he said:
Speaking for myself. I think we are incurring a very grave responsibility indeed if we bring out a large number of young Englishmen to this country whose future is uncertain, unless it is clear that their services will be required, and it is for this reason particularly that I welcome this Debate.
That statement was made in the Legislative Council in India this year. We could not have a higher authority. The position has 'been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea, and I speak with some knowledge. I do not profess any great knowledge myself, but I have a very large correspondence which comes in day by day and week by week whenever the Indian mail arrives, containing complaints from members of the Indian Civil Service, and from members of the other services, as to the hostility with which they are treated, not merely by the extremists but by other classes, as a result of the agitation of the extremists.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Who is creating bad blood now?

Sir W. JOYNSON.HICKS: No, forgive me. It is no good hiding sores. These things have been said openly in the Legislative Council. I will give one instance of what is happening, which came before my notice last week. A gentleman came to see me whose family I know well. He had come back from India. He was a member of one of the other services and not of the Indian Civil Service. There was a riot, and he was wounded badly. Several of the rioters were arrested and prosecuted. They were supplied with the very best legal talent for their defence, and they were convicted. Then they appealed. This young Englishman went to the Deputy-Commissioner of the district saying, "I have conducted the case by myself, but now that it is going to a higher court may I have the assistance of the Public Prosecutor in order that the case may be conducted by a lawyer, as the defendants will have lawyers?" The answer by the Deputy-Commissioner, who was an Indian, was "Certainly not. I am not going to certify for legal assistance for you. Do it yourself." It was not until this young man made a personal appeal to the headquarters of the district that he got legal assistance provided for him as against the legal help the defendants had. The appeal was heard and dismissed, and the men are now serving their terms of imprisonment. That is a pin-prick if you like, but it is the kind of thing that is going on all over India to-day, one of the pin-pricks to the young Englishmen who are doing their best to carry out their arduous and grave duties.
It is the moderate view in India—not the extreme view—that we are going to permit the complete Indianisation of these Services. It is the moderate view that the Englishmen in all these and all posts was gradually and quickly as possible got rid of. Resolutions have been moved in the Legislative Council in India, though they have not yet been carried, showing that trend of opinion, and calling upon the Government to appoint a Committee every year to see that the process of Indianisation is proceeded with as rapidly as possible, and calling on the Government to appoint a certain proportion of Judges, Chief Justices, and Governors of Provinces, who shall be Indians, and asking that, until the proportion is reached, no Englishmen shall be appointed. Only I do not want to detain the House, I could read out resolu-
tion after resolution of that kind which has been placed before the Chief Legislative Council in Simla anti the Provincial Councils. Lastly, may I call attention, as evidence of the real anxiety on the part of the men in the provinces in India, to the fact that during the last few years they have been compelled to form associations of defence in nearly every province? The Central Provinces have one which is well known. One is being formed at the present time for the United Provinces for the protection of these men from injustice and hardship. Do you think that groups of Englishmen serving their country in India would be likely to go to the trouble of banding themselves together into associations to protect themselves from hardship and injustice if there were no cause?

Captain O'GRADY: By what method?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: By perfectly honourable methods, the same kind of methods, if you like, as those by which trade unionists in this country band themselves together to protect themselves from hardship. I only mention this as an illustration to show that, in the minds of these men, there is such definite evidence of hardship and injustice from which they are suffering that they deem it necessary to form associations for their own protection. I ask the Prime Minister, realising the full responsibility which he has as Prime Minister of this country for the maintenance of our rule in India, to deal with this matter in his statement to-day, not merely from the financial point of view, but to say some words of sympathy and good-fellowship to those Englishmen who are carrying out these very important, onerous, and difficult duties, in very trying circumstances. They are looking to the British Parliament, and, above all, to the Prime Minister, at this moment to cheer and comfort them in their difficulties, and I ask him to make a statement to-day, if he can, with regard to the position of the Government in reference to India, and especially to say a word of kindness and cheer for these men.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I am speaking early as I understand that by arrangement this Debate is to come to an end at an early hour, in order to enable hon. Gentlemen opposite to raise questions in which they are specially interested, and I will do my
best to enable that pledge to be redeemed. I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House of Commons. I have heard a great deal about this, more especially in the course of the last few months. No doubt there is a great deal of uneasiness among our British civil servants and British officials in India with regard to the future, and there is no doubt, as my hon. Friend states, that they feel that their position is precarious, and they are very uneasy with regard to their pay and their pension and position generally. There is an apprehension that the great constitutional changes which have been introduced in the course of the last few months will affect their position prejudicially, and they want re-assurances—and possibly they need re-assurances—with respect to all these questions. They are discharging a very great trust on behalf of the people of this country and on behalf of the people of India. Without their loyalty and capacity and their indomitable and continuous courage and patience, India could not possibly be saved from falling into the position of anarchy from which this country rescued her a century and more ago.
It is quite natural that the great constitutional changes which took place should provoke some uneasiness in the minds of those who worked the old system. That is the effect of every great change in an establishment. Those who have been running an establishment along well-known lines are naturally unhappy with regard to the effect that changes may have upon their own prospects and conditions. Therefore we must not be surprised to find that that is the state of mind of the British officials in India. I should like to say one or two words with regard to the working of those changes before I come to the specific point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend because they have a bearing upon the problem which he suggested for our consideration. Those changes were in the nature of an experiment, and they must be treated as an experiment, a great and important experiment, but still an experiment. Difficulties have arisen and weaknesses have been exposed in the working of this new system, but that was inevitable. On the
whole I think that it may be said, taking into account the fact that the experiment has been in operation only for a year and a half, that there has been a very considerable measure of success in spite of drawbacks which have manifested themselves.
India has never been governed on these principles before. The native states are not governed on these principles now, and it remains to be seen whether a system of this kind, adapted to Western needs, perfected by centuries of experiment, and marked at many stages, in fact at every stage, with repeated failures, a system which the West has perfected for its own conditions and its own temperament, is suitable for India. That remains to be seen and that we must watch carefully, but we must also watch it patiently. We must not be in a hurry to jump to the conclusion, because there have been difficulties and drawbacks, mistakes and failures, that the experiment has been a complete failure in itself. That would be unfair to India, just as it would be unfair to another part of the world which is much nearer to us if we suddenly came to the conclusion, because there are difficulties and troubles there, that the very gifted race on which we have conferred self-government were quite unequal to the task. We must not have precipitate judgment on these experiments. On the other hand I hope that the Indian leaders will not force a precipitate judgment upon us by their action. It is a case in which a great deal of patience is required on both sides.
Up to the present all we can say is that, in spite of the drawbacks, there has been a very satisfactory measure of success. On the other hand it is important that we should realise that the most serious and testing time has probably not yet been reached. Before the last election, and until recently, there was a very considerable non-co-operative movement. Very powerful elements in India refused to associate themselves with this experiment at all, and the elections were held without the assistance of that advanced section, and the Parliament or Legislature chosen did not represent those elements. There have been very able and distinguished Indians who have done their best to make the experiment a complete success but others who have been steadily opposed to it. I think that in another
year or 18 months there will be another election. The non-co-operative movement at the present time is in a state of collapse. What part it will take in that next election we cannot tell.
What influence the non-co-operators and men of that kind will exert upon those elections I cannot predict. A good deal will depend upon the kind of representatives chosen at the next election, whether they will be men of moderate temper, such as those who constitute the present legislature, men who are honestly and earnestly doing their best to make this new constitutional experiment a success, or whether they will be there as men who are simply using all the powers of the machine in order to attain some purpose which is detrimental to British rule and subversive of the whole system upon which India has been governed up to now. That is why I say that the most serious and the most trying time, the time which will constitute the real test of the success of this effort, is yet to come. I think it is right that we should say that, if there is a change of that kind in the character of the legislature, in the purpose of those who are chosen, in the design of the responsible and chosen leaders of the Indian people, that would constitute a serious situation, and we should take it into account.
One thing we must make clear—that Britain will in no circumstances relinquish her responsibility for India. That is a cardinal principle, not merely of the present Government, but I feel confident that it will be a cardinal principle with any Government that could command the confidence of the people of this country. It is important that that should be known, not so much in this country, for there is no doubt about it here, but in India, where for many reasons there seems to be doubt disseminated, sometimes fortuitously, sometimes quite unintentionally, sometimes from facts which seem for the moment to justify conclusions of that kind. It is right that, not merely here but in India, it should be thoroughly understood that that is a fundamental principle which will guide every party that ever has any hope of commanding the confidence of the people of this country. We stand by our responsibilities; we will take whatever steps are necessary to discharge or to en-
force them. We owe this, not only to the people of this country, though they have made great sacrifices for India, but we owe it to the people of India as a whole. We had no right to go there unless we meant to carry our trust right through.
There is a great variety of races and creeds in India, probably a greater variety than in the whole of Europe. There are innumerable divisive forces there, and if Britain withdrew her strong hand nothing would ensue except division, strift, conflict, and anarchy. India would become a prey either to strong adventurers or to a strong invader. That had been the history of India up to the very hour that we took India in hand. There has always been a historical play between these two alternatives. What has happened before would ensue again if Britain withdrew her might and strength from the guidance of that great Empire. In fact, if we were to do so, it would be one of the greatest betrayals in the history of any country.
We have a duty, not merely to the vast territories in India, where we exercise supreme control, but we also owe a duty to the great Princes of India and to the Indian States which are the feudatories of His Majesty the King-Emperor. They constitute about one-third of India. We owe an undoubted duty to them. They have been loyal to the Throne and to the Empire under conditions where loyalty was tried in every fibre and where loyalty was vital to the existence of the Empire. There has been nothing more glorious in the whole story of the Empire than the rallying of these Princes and these peoples to the British Empire at a moment when we needed all the strength which we could command, either in our own territories at home or throughout the vast domain of the British Empire. Therefore we owe a great duty to them. We also have a duty to the backward parts of India, which are dependent on the direction and guidance and vision which British statesmanship can command for the purpose of the development of good government in that great country.
We have invited the co-operation of the people of India in the discharge of this trust. We have invited them in increasing numbers and perhaps in increasing proportion. I think that that
was inevitable. It was a natural development. We have invited them on the Bench; we have invited them in the Army; we have invited them in the Civil Service; and we have invited them to assist in the Government of India under their own people now in the Legislature. That was an inevitable evolution. But I want to make it clear, if it is not already clear, that that is not in order to lead up to a final relinquishment of our trust, but with a view to bringing them into a partnership in the discharge of that trust within the British Empire. To discharge that great trust it is essential that we should have, not merely the aid of Indian civil servants, Indian soldiers, Indian judges, and Indian legislators, but it is vital that we should have the continued asistance of British officials. There are not so very many of them. I marvelled when I looked up the statistics. There are only 1,200, governing 315,000,000 people, with all sorts of physical difficulties of climate and special difficulties for men brought up in temperate climates like ours.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Does that include all British officials?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is the total simply for the Civil Service. It does not include the Police and the Medical Service. The figures are: 1,200 British civil servants; 700 British police officers; and 000 British medical officers. That is a total of 2,500, governing that gigantic Empire, with its hundreds of millions of population, governing quietly and without fuss, doing it effectively and doing it for generations. There is hardly anything that is comparable with it in the history of the world, certainly not since the great days of the Roman Empire. Here is something for us to be proud of. I do not believe there is a country in the world that can produce such a triumph of government. As I said once in this, House, there are men governing huge territories there whose name is hardly known. Even when they retire, and you meet them, they are introduced to you as members of the Indian Civil Service, and you have never heard of them, although they have been governing, perhaps, tens of millions of people for a very long period, their every word a command, every sentence a decree, accepted by these people,
accepted willingly, with trust in their judgment and confidence in their justice and their fairness, which ought to be the pride of our race.
I have often talked to Americans about this. They are full of wonder at the achievement of ordinary and insignificant —in the sense of not being known—civil servants in different parts of the world, alone or almost without companionship, governing great territories. They always regard it as a miracle of the British gift for government. These civil servants are entitled to every word of support; they are entitled to every deed of support that. this Imperial Parliament can give, and if they need it, it is the business of statesmen to give it, speaking not only on their own behalf, but speaking an behalf of the whole of their countrymen, to stand behind them, to support them, to see that justice is done to them, and that fair play is done to them. If they have a. grievance, we must pledge ourselves—not merely this Government, but any other Government that comes here—to see that fair treatment, which is their right, is dispensed to them. They ought to know that that is the attitude of the British Parliament towards them.
I am one of those who believe in getting the co-operation of India in the government of the country. I believe it strengthens the Empire. It strengthens the hold which the Empire has upon them. It would be a mistake to make India regard the Empire a something which is outside. It is a strength to the Empire to make them feel that they are part of it, that they are in it, part of the structure, and that when they are challenged, and when the Empire is challenged, they are not, fighting for something which is in London, but for seine thing which is in Calcutta or Bombay, or wherever they happen to be. That is what made our strength in the last War in the Dominions and in the Colonies. Therefore, I approach this question from the point of view of one who believes in getting Indians to assist us in discharging the very great trust and obligation which we have inherited and which I hope we shall transmit to our descendants in generations to come.
5.0 P.M.
From that, point of view, I should like to say this: The success of our efforts in securing the attachment of Indians to
the Service, the recruitment of Indians to the Service, and the embodiment of Indians in the Service will depend, not, upon the quality of the speeches delivered in the Legislature by Indians—although I do not despise that contribution in the least, because that is what a Parliament means—it means a place for speaking—but rather by their efficiency in the discharge of their ordinary, humdrum tasks as members of the Civil and other Services. I think it is important that Indians themselves should get that well into their minds. They see speeches reported in the papers, and they see a great deal of importance attached to those speeches, and they say, "This is the art of government." Well, it is part of the art of democratic government, and the people who try to govern without it have generally failed. In the War, as I ventured to say some time ago, the countries which were most efficient on that side were also most efficient in the conduct of the War. It is a great part of the art of government; it is the beginning; but the other is vital, and unless they supplement it by showing that they are able to do their work as civil servants, then the experiment of inviting them to co-operate with us will he a failure. What I want specially to say is this, that whatever their success, whether as Parliamentarians or as administrators, I can see no period when they can dispense with the guidance and the assistance of this small nucleus of the British Civil Service, of British officials in India—this 1,200 in a population of 315,000,000. They only number 1,200. They are the steel frame of the whole structure. I do not care what you build on to it—if you take that steel frame out, the fabric will collapse. It is therefore essential that they should be there, but not for their own sake. What does it matter finding 1,200 positions for a population of 40,000,000? Finding jobs for 1,200 really is too trivial. I see comments, and unworthy comments, about our finding avenues, jobs, careers for our young men. There is not one of this 1,200 that could not easily find a much better job in this country—a much better paying one. The difficulty is to get men to go there. It is not a difficulty of finding places to put them into. Therefore, I am not talking from that point of view. I am not taking
it from that point of view as I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir Henry Craik) when I had a conversation with him a few moments ago, and I am entirely in agreement with him. It is from the point of view of India I am talking. It is a question not of the value to us of finding outlets for intelligent young men, but of the value to India of getting men of this hind who are highly trained and full of spirit—and there must be some spirit in them to go there and undertake these tasks. These men are placed at India's disposal, and Indians ought to feel a deep sense of gratitude, and I have no doubt the vast majority of them do. It is no secret that they often feel far more confidence in these men than they do in men of their own flesh and blood.
Therefore it is essential that we should keep up this Service. There is no doubt at all that because of the sense of disturbance and disquietude which recent events have created in India, difficulty has been experienced in obtaining recruits for the Indian Civil Service. I do not think there is much in the difficulty as regards medical men, or at least it is a different kind of difficulty. The difficulty in regard to the medical men, a difficulty which is experienced even here—and you certainly cannot get them in the Colonies—is due to the War. When the War came, young men were drafted into the Army just at the time when they should have been undergoing their training, and the result is that there is a great gap which it will take some years to fill up, I am partly responsible in another way, because the Insurance Act has increased the demand for doctors, and what was supposed, on the part of the medical profession, to have been a great conspiracy, and was denounced as such, has turned out to he a real blessing and an encouragement to students to persevere in their studies. At any rate, there is a shortage here, there is a shortage in the Colonies, and, naturally, there is a shortage in India as well. But when you come to the British Civil Service and the Police in India the difficulty there is in a different category. That is undoubtedly due to the fear that there is going to be a change to their detriment, and a change which will prejudicially affect their status. There are sentences like that. quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir
W. Joynson-Hicks), and I say at once I am rather sorry that statement was made.
It is a sentence which taken away from its context and read by parents would have the effect of discouraging them from sending their children to the Indian Civil Service. I think it is discouraging that this sentence should be uttered at a moment when great difficulty is being experienced in getting recruits. I hope when it is thoroughly realised that there is no idea of winding up the British Civil Service; that we consider it not merely as an integral part of the system but as essential to the very life of the system, and that in that spirit we will consider everything that affects conditions in the Service—I hope it will be an encouragement for young men once more to turn their attention to this very great career which, not merely will redound to their own glory, but undoubtedly to the glory of their fatherland, and make its name great throughout the nations—because that is the record of the Indian Civil Service.
All these questions we are considering very carefully; the questions which have been put by my two hon. Friend's, the question of pay, for instance. No doubt they have been hit very hard by the sudden increase in the cost of living attributable to the War. There has been a reduction, and that reduction is still a progressive one. There is also the question of the passages to Europe which, as a whole, have been during the last few years inflated. I think in the course of a year or two or three there must be a reduction upon these very high charges on people who have only got their pay to draw upon to keep themselves and their families. It will come about, but I will promise to go into that matter, and, as a matter of fact, my Noble Friends the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary, are both considering that matter very carefully. It is right they should do so, because it is essential that young men should not be discouraged from entering the Service.
There is no doubt at all that the setting up of a legislature has forced us to consider a good many other questions in reference to Indian Government. I marvel when I consider the kind of work which is done, not merely by Indian civil servants, but by the Indian Council.
They are practically the Cabinet Ministers of India, with enormous responsibilities of every kind. They have no Under-Secretaries and their numbers are very few. The number of British members is only four and they have no Private Secretaries.

Mr. MARRIOTT: Is there no Cabinet Secretariat?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is exactly the sort of Government my hon. Friend would like. That shows how little he knows about If he had the advantage of having a discussion with one of the members of the Council, he would realise what a need there was of a Cabinet Secretariat. It is absolutely impossible for them to discharge the duties they have now got in addition to the task which they had before—the duties of Ministers conducting their business in a Parliament. They have to answer questions and to take part in the discussions. The Indian representatives are showing considerable activity, following the example of members in other parts of the Empire, and giving as much trouble as they can, which is quite right. That precedent is being followed in India, with the result that it is quite impossible for the very few Ministers that are there, who are practically Cabinet Ministers, to discharge their functions without some assistance. Now that is one of the questions which we have to consider. The difficulties in India are increasing. They are bound to increase, with the spread of education, with the greater knowledge in India of what is going on outside, with the influence which comes from great movements from every other part of the world surging on the frontiers of India and sending a thrill of disquietude throughout the whole of that country. That has come, and, to a certain extent, it will continue to come. We must not be discouraged by it and say that it means disaffection in India, that it means insurrection in India, that it means that India is getting tired of British rule. The world is tired of every rule. If hon. Members will read the newspapers, they will find that this is the only Coalition that has lasted six years.

Lieut - Commander KENWORTHY: What about Lenin?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, he has not lasted as long, and. I am not sure that he has lasted, but my hon. and gallant Friend knows more about him than I do. You have got it in Italy and France and everywhere else, and that simply means the sort of unrest there is throughout the world, but you must not get discouraged. It does mean, however, undoubtedly, a considerable accession of responsibility and 01 work to those who are discharging the functions of 'government in every land, and in the main we must, as far as India is concerned, depend, not upon what happens in this Parliament, where we can get discussions only once, twice, or three times a year upon India. We cannot keep a continuous eye upon what happens in India, and that is right. You cannot do it. It depends upon the kind of Government that you have there. It is essential that that should be strengthened, but whatever you do in the way of strengthening it, there is one institution we will not interfere with, there is one institution we will not cripple, there is one institution we will not deprive of its functions or of its privileges, and that is that institution which built up the British Raj—the British Civil Service in India. We have undertaken the responsibility for India. We have undertaken to guide India. We have undertaken to establish and maintain law and good government throughout its vast domains. We have undertaken to defend its frontiers and to protect its peoples against internal foes and external foes. The British Empire means at all costs to continue to discharge that sacred trust and to fulfil that high destiny.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I wonder what evil genius inspired the Prime Minister with the necessity to make this speech to-day. There is no doubt that this is a new declaration as regards India, a declaration which he will find it difficult indeed to square with the declaration of August, 1917. He has said—and I did not take very much objection to it—that we will never relinquish our responsibility for India. He is quite right. Neither States nor individuals can ever relinquish their responsibility for what they say or do, but what did he mean? Did he mean a change of policy? Is it his view still that our duty as regards India is to see that country safe on the lines of Dominion Home Rule? Does he
wish to see that country self-governing, even as Canada or Australia are self-governing? That was the declaration of 1917. Not immediately, but as soon as it could safely be done, that was to be the goal. Is that relinquishing our responsibility or not? What is the use of framing a formula such as that? The people, of India reading this speech to-morrow will want to know what the right hon. Gentleman means. Perorations are all very well, but in this last peroration of his he said—and I think it is in the memory of all the House—that there was one institution which should never be deprived either of its powers or its functions, and that was the Indian Civil Service. Is that the doctrine of the Government, or is ultimately self-government the doctrine of the Government? How are you going to combine the two? On which horse are you riding? He said that no Government that ever follows his Government will ever dare to relinquish our responsibility for India. No, we shall not, but our responsibility for India seems to be rather different from his.
Our responsibility for India consists in assisting the formation of democratic self-government in India. All our dealings with India will be to bring that day about when India can safely be given democratic Home Rule, and I am afraid that under Home Rule, even as Australia is under Home Rule, you cannot possibly aver that the present Civil Service in India, who have done their work excellently—I will not be behind anyone else in this House in giving my tribute to the civil servants in India—but how is it possible for that Civil Service, when once there is Dominion Home Rule in India, to he able to carry on without a change of functions and without a change of powers? It is notorious that one of the difficulties that the Civil Service have to face at the present time is that already, under the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, under diarchy itself, their powers and their functions are no longer what they were, and their difficulty is that whereas before those reforms they were the masters of India, now insensibly they are-bound to be becoming the servants of the new Governments, the new Parliaments, the new Councils of India, and when the Assembly has complete self-government, then it is inevitable that the whole status of the Civil Service in India must change, and the civil servants in that country
will be, even as the civil servants in this country, the servants of the Government and not the masters of the country. That is a change which is inevitable as self-government progresses, and the British officials in India—the best of them—realise that they are doing their finest service to their Mother Country when they assist forward the process of their own extinction. They know quite well —the best of them—that the best service they can render is to make the transition easy and not difficult, a transition which must inevitably dethrone them from their power.
Besides obscuring, at any rate, if he did not eclipse, the famous declaration of August, 1917, the right hon. Gentleman went on—I do not know why—to offer threats of withdrawal of the diarchy reforms. He pointed out to the House that it was an experiment. It was an experiment, an experiment from which there can be no possible going back under any circumstances. He pointed out to the House the danger that he saw—and that every person interested in Indian questions has seen all along—the danger that non-co-operation might cease and that the non-co-operators might go on to the Councils. I hope they will go on to the Councils. To my mind, there has been no more lamentable blunder made by the Indian people than the refusal, under the leadership of Gandhi, to go on to the Councils. We want them on the Councils. I wanted them there all along, and now we are told, almost with regret, that non-co-operation has collapsed and that the Indians show signs—

The PRIME MINISTER: With regret?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Almost with regret.

The PRIME MINISTER: indicated dissent.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am very glad it was not. We are told that non-cooperation has collapsed and that at the next election, taking place in 1924, the non-co-operators will, as I hope they will, go on to the councils and on to the assembly, and we are told that it will be a sign of failure if, when these non-cooperators go on to the councils, they conduct themselves in an obstructive manner and do not co-operate with the Government, as, indeed, the various
parties in the Coalition party co-operate with the Government, here. That is entirely contrary to our ideas, on this side, of what is wanted. We want them to go on to the councils and the assembly, not, to form part of the Government, but to form part of the Opposition to the Government, until they can become the Government themselves. That is the ordinary constitutional development. That is what is wanted. It may involve obstruction, it may involve voting against supplies. It is only in that way that they will finally acquire the wisdom to carry on successfully democratic constitutional government, and to say, as I read the Prime Minister's speech to-day, that if the non-co-operators go on to the councils and there conduct a campaign of opposition to the Government- at present in power in that country, they will be regarded as bringing the reforms to nought, as a failure which is to justify us in withdrawing the whole of the diarchy, seems to me to be a most unfortunate threat, and a threat which, as a matter of fact, it is quite impossible to carry out.
I hope we are not going to have, now that the right hon. Member for Cambridge County (Mr. Montagu) is no longer conducting the India Office, a change from a perfectly steadfast, settled policy to a policy of alternate threats and concessions. That, indeed, would be fatal in India, as it has been in Ireland. The only chance is to see that your goal is clear, that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for India have definitely in view the same goal, namely, Dominion Home Role, although that Dominion Home Rule will unseat, from their power at any rate, the present Civil Service. I can only regret that this Debate should have been inaugurated at all. I conceive that the Civil Service in India could have been cheered, could have been helped, in their very difficult path without having a declaration which affects the, whole of the constitutional development of India, but I regret it the more, because I believe it is speeches such as that, and speeches such as that delivered by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks), that are really making the conditions for the Civil Service in India far more difficult than they otherwise would be.
That sort of speech is repeated in every one of the vernacular papers in India—repeated not because they want to advertise the wisdom of the hon. Member, but because they want to pillory another English member as a hater of the Indian people. That is the subtle poisoning that is being used by the extremists in India. I have proved in India itself that I am no friend of the extremists, and if the hon. Member knew as much of the Indian Press as I do, or read as much of it as I do, he would realise that there is no one the Indians hate so much as people who, like myself, try to bridge the gulf between Indians and Englishmen.
There is another point to which I wish to draw attention. The whole keynote of the first two speeches was that it was essential to have a contented Civil Service. I think it is, but I could wish that the Mother of Parliaments, when discussing the Indian question, would give as much attention to having a contented India as to having a contented Civil Service. In this Debate, and in the last Debate we had in this House on India, every single speech, except my own and that of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Spoor), was a speech dealing solely with the Civil Service in India. That is not worthy of this House of Commons. It is not worthy of a real House of Commons. After all, the Civil Service exists for the country, and not the country for the Civil Service, and I am afraid that by our last Debate, anal by this, we shall give the impression to India that the interest of Englishmen now, so far as India is concerned, is solely wrapped up in the status and position of their own fellow-countrymen in India. That would be a great mistake. It may be that in this House we show a very narrow partisan feeling on this question, but in England as a whole, and particularly in the ranks of the Labour movement, our interest in India is a far wider one. We do earnestly desire to see India take its proper place in the world, and work out its own destiny as a self-governing nation.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: With every desire, quite natural to me, to follow out the precept of the Prime Minister, that is, to oppose the Government, I am quite unable to take the same tragic view of his speech as my hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down. I
hope that his speech will not. give people in India the impression which would be, I think, a most harmful impression, that the Prime Minister of this country, speaking with great responsibility in the House of Commons, threatened the people of India. That would be a most mischievous impression to get abroad, because, after all, however much we may differ from the Prime Minister, he is the chief officer of the Crown, and occupies a position of very great responsibility. The view I took of his speech—I may be wrong, but I cannot be accused of over-partiality to my right hon. Friend—was this, that civil servants in India were discharging their duties in a time of transition, of exceptional difficulty and of trial. I will not say the whole of India, but India as a whole, is seething with internal difficulties, as is almost every other nation of the world. It is no special feature of India. It is a characteristic of this country at the present moment, and there is being carried on in India a most remarkable experiment —one of the most remarkable experiments in government ever attempted—in a country containing as much diversity, as the Prime Minister has said, of race, of creed and of language as Europe itself. What I feel is this—and it applies to every speaker, no matter to what party he belongs—that we should exercise very great care and responsibility, in such a time as this, as to criticisms which we may make, and the advice which we may give.
I regret very much the tone, and some of the things which my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) said. I think they were very far from helpful, and they did lend colour to what my hon. and gallant Friend said, that the basis of the Debate to-day was not so much the well-being of India, as the well-being of the Civil Service in India. I do not think he intended to do so, but I regretted the way in which he put it. Of course, I accept fully the aphorism of my hon. and gallant Friend that India does not exist for the sake of the Civil Service, but the Civil Service exists for the sake of India. That is the whole basis of our position, laid down in the classic words in the time of Queen Victoria, and re-
peated in words which are entitled to rank with them in 1917, and I say again, that I did not read the note of threat, or the shaking of the fist in what the Prime Minister said. He might have had a little touch of the steel in it—I do not know. As I say, I did not gather it. It seemed to me to be an effort to let the Civil Service know that, in this exceptional time of trial and difficulty, we, their countrymen here, realising their trust and our trust, are sympathetic towards them. We are desirous of remedying their grievances, and enabling them in every possible way to discharge their duty to those for whom they hold their trust. I hope, on those grounds, that the request made by my hon. and gallant Friend will be granted.
Is there not a case for some inquiry? I confess I do not know sufficient about it to press it as strongly as I might, but, from what I have heard to-day, it does look to me that it might be a very wise thing to grant an inquiry into these grievances, and let men who are discharging these very difficult duties have an outlet and a vent. I do not mind how the inquiry is conducted, so long as there is a fair and an impartial inquiry, with Indians themselves on it, since it affects them as well as others. I do not intend to delay the House, but I thought it my duty, as far as I can discharge it on this side of the House, to say, that while we sympathise with the Indian Civil Service, and fully realise the responsibilities we have, we are determined to see that full trust is given to that great experiment, and that, no matter what the difficulties are, it shall not be withdrawn, but encouraged. That is the only way. You cannot stop the progress of India; it is impossible. It is a world movement to a different, and, I hope, a better, state of things, and if we are sympathetic, if we are full of understanding, and if we are wise, judicious and restrained in our language, I am quite certain the day will come—it may be distant, but that day may yet come in our time—when in this vast Dominion, with all our faults—and they are very great—with which we have discharged a duty to the admiration of impartial onlookers, that great country, with all its diversities of race, creed and tongue, will perform an even better and nobler part in the great circle
of self-governing Dominions within the great Commonwealth which we call the British Empire.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I recognise, of course, the understanding that has been come to between Members opposite and you, Mr. Speaker, and I will only intervene for a few moments. I regret, though I make no complaint, that I cannot take the time necessary to make a longer answer than is possible in the circumstances to some of the points in the speech of the hon. and gallant, Member opposite. As it: is. I can only refer to one accusation against ray right hon. Friend which has already, I think, been answered by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and to which, speaking on behalf of the Government, I can give a most complete denial. Everyone in the House, except the hon. and gallant Member, will agree that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister merely pointed out the difficulties and dangers of what is admittedly—it is no new fact—a great experiment. It was never suggested at the time the 1919 Act was passed, and it was never suggested at the time of the Declaration in 1917, that the scheme then put forward was not an experiment, or not in the nature of an experiment, and ray right hon. Friend has pointed out that, while there is much for which we can take hope in the situation, there are also dangers and difficulties which we have by no means passed, and, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, circumstances may be even more difficult in the year 1924.
To read into that statement a threat to India and Indian opinion is really to make a most mischievous accusation which may have very serious effects in India, and to which I, representing my Noble Friend the Secretary of State, and speaking on behalf of the Government, give the most complete and unqualified denial. It is quite obvious that the hon. and gallant Member looks at this question from an entirely different point: of view, certainly, from anyone who sits On this side, and, I believe, from many who sit on the other side. My right hon. Friend has appealed, as others who have stood at this box have appealed, for the fullest co-operation between the many diverse races in India and the British race in carrying out the destinies of India.
What is the view of the hon. and gallant Gentleman? His actual words were that "there is no nobler task the British Civil Service can perform in India than to assist forward their own extinction." It is quite obvious the hon. and gallant Gentleman, so far from believing in this policy of co-operation between the British race and the races of India, is in favour of the annihilation of. British influence in that country.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am in favour of Indian Home Rule; are you?

Earl WINTERTON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is in favour of the annihilation of the British influence. The lines upon which the Government have, always proceeded in this matter are entirely different. We have appealed for co-operation and we have, to a great extent received that co-operation. Our efforts in that direction are not helped by the, sort of speech made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman this afternoon. In fact, so far from advancing the matter, which I should have thought all men of good will had the desire to do, it has tended to put it back. Such appeals to the emotions as are made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman will, in my opinion, do nothing to achieve what is, after all, a question of practical statesmanship for India itself. We have given the tools of statesmanship to India, and it is now for India to use them. She has the tools of practical statesmanship by which she may work out to a degree unknown before the passage of the Act her own destiny on her own lines. Those tools are stamped with the mark of British good will towards India, no mean guarantee for the worth of any article. It is open now for India to use them; to show her capacity in using them and her good will in using them. That is the task which India has before her. That is the task which His Majesty's Government and the Secretary of State will assist in the fullest degree, and I submit again the work will not be assisted by speeches such as was made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme.

PENSIONS ADMINISTRATION.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
I am sorry that after so extremely interesting a Debate on an all-important subject that I have to draw attention to another matter; but I want to bring before the House and the Minister concerned a not less interesting matter to the bulk of the people of this country and perhaps even more absorbing to them than the subject we have been discussing. I refer to the administration of pensions during the past year. I want in examining that administration to do it in no spirit of carping criticism, or petty or party spirit. I have always tried, in approaching this subject, to do so in that spirit which the subject merits; and of one thing I am certain that until recently I would yield to no man in my admiration of the system which has been built up in this country by co-operation between the humblest worker and the other classes in the State, right up even to the Pensions Minister. The system has been built up out of a state of almost incredible chaos and confusion, and it reflected very great credit upon the people of this country.
Within the last year an Act, has come into operation which has very definitely clamped down the enthusiasm of people all over the country, enthusiasm characteristic of those who co-operated with the Pensions Ministry during previous years. When the Pensions Act was going through this House the outstanding fear which some of us expressed, and which was forced clearly upon us, was that the sympathetic spirit in which our people tried to atone for the wounds and the suffering of those who suffered, and their dependants, was going to give way to a cool, calculated officialism, at the behest of economy so-called. I think that outlook has been justified by the facts. I do not criticise an official because he is an official, but what I do say is that pensions are a particular and peculiar subject which need for their successful administration the whole-hearted co-operation of the best citizens in the towns and villages of the country, and not only that but the use of the experience of these people, and indeed every experience, as all are essential to the successful working of the system.
The Pensions Ministry, I know, may say to me that the bulk of the officials who are now operating are ex-service men. I should like, however, to retort
to the representatives of the Ministry on the Front Bench that whether or not the bulk of the higher-placed officials are ex-service men, that at the present time the pensions system is simply a great machine run for all material purposes by a comparatively few officials and a Minister who dominates the Committees and the whole of the pensions machinery, and who, in his turn, is dominated by a so-called economy about which we hear so much. We said when the Bill upon which the system is worked was going through this House that the inevitable result on the whole system would be, in face of the fact that we were going to have wider areas and lesser powers, that the administration of the whole system would practically pass into the hands of the higher officials, and of the Pensions Minister himself. As a proof that this has been so, I want to quote a circular which has been sent out by the Liverpool War Pensions Sub-committee. This clearly expresses the experience of most local committees upon this subject.
The fashion of the Pensions Ministry now, as one gathers from letters and so on that one receives, is to interfere with old and accepted interpretations of Royal Warrants, and at the same time with old and accepted methods of administering the pensions. Hence the Liverpool War Pensions Sub-committee has had reason to draw the attention of the Pensions Ministry and to every Member of this House to what is going on. May I mention a very important alteration which has been made in the Royal Warrant, and which, if allowed by the House to continue, will not only hinder people from getting pensions in the future, to which the House and the country will think they are entitled, but at the same time will deprive thousands of people, who at the present time have pensions, of the pensions they are receiving.?
6.0 P.M.
There is a Clause in the Royal Warrant in Article I and also in Article 24 which deals with roughly the same subject. There is an article which makes it quite clear that a man who is married after his removal from duty may get his pension and his wife cannot receive a pension. That Article was laid down for some clear reason of experience, and the reason was that men who were convalescent and had been removed from
duty were getting married, and in many cases it seemed as if the State was accepting an obligation which it had no right to accept. This was the accepted interpretation up till the present time. If a man had been permanently removed from duty—the House will mark that— that is the interpretation that has been worked upon up to 26th June this year— if a man had been permanently removed from duty before he was married, then his wife did not receive any pension. Let me quote a case given by the Liverpool War Pensions Sub-committee. This man was married in 1917, and served 14 months after that. After leaving the Army he received a pension, and his wife, or widow, subsequently received a pension for 31 years until in April of this year she suddenly found the pension stopped. The Liverpool committee wanted to know why the woman's pension was stopped, and they were told that the man had been removed from duty 14 months before he was married. He had been in hospital in Salonika. That was his first removal from duty, and although he had served 14 months after that, the inter-pretation was accepted, and although the woman had been getting the pension for 3½ years, it is now accepted that the period was taken from the man's first removal from duty and, therefore, no pension was paid, or is paid. If that system is likely to be carried, it means this: In those hectic days, when the young men used to be sent by tens of thousands back to this country, they were admitted to hospital, and people visited them, and when they were convalescent they were admitted to the homes of both rich and poor. In those days many young men came in contact with ladies, and they got married. It was very difficult to avoid that fate under the conditions in which they were placed, and a man must have been a miracle to have avoided it. What happens? In the instance I have given the man went out and served some years. He was wounded once, and more than once, after he was married, but, according to the Minister of Pensions' interpretation, this man's wife, if she is now receiving a pension, can be deprived of it because he was married after his removal from duty. That is the only logical interpretation one can place upon depriving this woman of her pension. It means more than that. It seems to me that there
may be widows who may be deprived of their pensions because they were married after the first removal from duty. I want the House to note what has taken place. This interpretation of the removal from duty has been accepted as a permanent removal for the whole period of the War, and afterwards up to April of this year.
In April this year the officials in the Liverpool area deprived this woman or her pension on the ground that she was married after the first removal from duty. On 26th June the Minister of Pensions, probably finding that he was in difficulties, made an Amendment in the Royal Warrant. I have here the Royal Warrant of 21st June, which was laid on the Table on 26th June, and this was three months after the Committee had given their interpretation. Who is in charge of this matter? Are the officials in charge or is it the Minister himself? I think it will be found that the whole system is now in the hands of a comparatively few officials who dominate the whole show in harmony with the Minister of Pensions who is more concerned about economy. The Minister of Pensions has had compliments paid to him from this side every time there has been a debate on this subject, but in the light of my own experience, I am not prepared to bandy compliments with the right hon. Gentleman for the simple reason that interpretations of this kind are going to have a very bad effect as far as the bulk of these men are concerned. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman means to insist upon that interpretation or not. I do not know whether he fully understood how far it would lead him when he took that course, but I am certain that if this interpretation of the Royal Warrant laid on the 26th June of this year is accepted, hon. Members of this House will find themselves up against a wholesale system of depriving women of their pensions because it is alleged that they were married after the first removal from duty.
Take the whole question which has been raised by the Liverpool Pensions Committee. In the first place, there is the question of the seven years' limit, and I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman is considering that matter. He was quite right when he stated in the Debate on the Bill that this system had been endorsed in previous Acts, but there were very grave doubts expressed at that time in view of the fact that we were coming
nearer to the time when the limit would operate. At that time very grave doubts were expressed as to whether it was not going to bring very great hardship on the men. I said at the time that I did not care whether the period was seven or seventeen years, if it could be proved that a man was suffering on account of this particular service, that man had a right to consideration.
It makes it all the more necessary that the Warrant should be overhauled, in view of the fact that 60 per cent. of the pensioners are being paid for disease rather than for wounds. That means that the bulk of the men who are suffering and being paid pensions, are suffering from diseases which take some time to work themselves out, and, although the Minister of Pensions has said that there are only twelve suffering through this time limit up to the present time, it is quite obvious that there is going to be more and more men who will come into this category, and that ultimately the State will be compelled to face the situation with a view to a revision of the Act and the Royal Warrant.
This special circular from Liverpool deals also with the cancellation of the education grants. I cannot understand why, in cases where education grants have been made, the children should have their education interrupted because they have been deprived of that grant in the midst of their education. I do not know whether this is being dealt with by the Minister of Pensions or not, but it seems to me, even if there has been a mistake and reason for doubt, that it is something akin to a crime, when a man has been killed, to assume that his children would not have been educated had he been alive. In this way you are breaking in upon their education just at the time when they are beginning to feel the full value of it.
I will deal now with the question of the deduction made from pensions by reason of grants made to the pensioners by local organisations. It is becoming quite the fashion wherever contributions are made by local organisation to count them as income, and thus make it impossible for the people to get a pension to the full amount to which they are entitled. If there is an organisation in a particular division paying 5s. a week to a pensioner that is counted as income, and the pension is deducted from that amount.
There is another side to this question. I have several cases of this kind in my own area, and it is obvious that this practice is becoming increasingly common. Here is the case of a woman whose son has died, and he was about 24 years of age. This boy enlisted when he was 17 years of age. He served several years and was wounded, and this year he died. Now the pension officer wants to know how much is coming into the house. The father is scarcely receiving enough to keep himself, and the youngest son is not keeping himself. There are two or three other 'boys, and there is the mother, and for five of them there is not more than 50s. a week coming into the house, and yet they are deprived of a pension because they are above the line of pecuniary need.
That boy went away from home at 17 years of age, and is there to be no compensation for the bringing up of a son who has to go away from his home under those conditions. Here is the position. These people have been caring for this 'boy. They have not been receiving enough to support him, and now, when he dies, there is to be no pension because they are above the line of pecuniary need. I could give case after case of this description, and the result of all this kind of thing is that men and families are being sent to the guardians, the local authorities are protesting against being deprived of powers to deal with these questions, and the guardians are also protesting against people being sent to them for relief who ought to be supported out of the funds of the State. If this system is to continue without the hearty co-operation of the people, it is going to lead in the long ran to the expression of views which are not desired by the people of this country. If the Minister of Pensions desires to economise, let him say so plainly. If he says that he cannot pay pensions, let him say so at once, because that is far more honest than limiting pensions and cutting them down by new interpretations of the Royal Warrants which have been accepted for years. That would be far more honest than putting into operation regulations which have certainly violated accepted definitions and interpretations of the old Committees. It seems to me that there is very grave need for overhauling the entire system.
I have not said anything about the Pensions Appeal Tribunals. All I desire to say about them is that in many districts people very seldom go to them, and they are losing faith in them. There is no value in going to such tribunals, because the system and the spirit now dominating the administration of pensions is altogether out of harmony with the desires of the people of this country. I say that it would be far better for the Minister of Pensions to take a firm and candid course, and if he wishes to economise let him do it straight and above board without all these equivocations we see expressed through Royal Warrants and various regulations. The right hon. Gentleman may say, "Well, the facts are so and so." I do not see how he can get out of the case, in view of the position in which he has been placed by the new interpretation of the Royal Warrant on the question of removal. But this fact remains that it is having a bad effect in the country and on the minds of the people.
The right hon. Gentleman may speak eloquently, he may make a good case as far as he is concerned, but the fact remains that people are being deprived wholesale of pensions, and this is telling in the country. I hope the right hon. Gentleman can explain the action taken on legitimate lines, but I hold that a. very definite investigation is required into the administration of our pensions system, especially under this new Act. Unless the right hon. Gentleman can challenge the statement put forward and illustrated by thousands of cases, unless he can do so by means of an inquiry, then I am afraid the spirit of unrest is going to operate generally in the country. I do not relish raising matters of this kind continually. Every time we ask questions about pensions we are simply inundated with letters from all parts of the country in regard to similar eases. I think the right hon. Gentleman will do me the credit of admitting that I seldom put questions down on the Paper. To-day for the first time for many months I had two, but I always send my cases direct. It is becoming of very little use doing that now in view of the attitude taken tip by the Department, but I feel it my duty to raise this question to-day because if this new system is allowed to operate with its
soullessness, its cruel, calculating methods of putting people down and using the guillotine upon them, then I say the whole country is going to be permeated with distrust, and the result of his administration will be that one of the finest systems in the world will be thrown into chaos and confusion, it will be surrounded with suspicion and distrust, and will ultimately prove not simply unworthy of this country but unworthy of the spirit with which the country has faced the question since the inception of the pensions system which followed on the wounds and sufferings of the War.

Mr. KENNEDY: I beg to second the Amendment.
I realise that the responsibility of the Minister of Pensions is a heavy one. I want to assure him, and I think I can do this on behalf of all those whose names are associated with mine on this Motion, that we have no desire whatever to increase the weight of his burden. Indeed, my desire, at any rate, is, if possible, to lighten his task and to enable him to escape from the evil consequences that are growing rapidly and are the inevitable result of the ill-considered policy upon which the Ministry has now embarked. The Minister of Pensions is responsible to this House for that policy. I want to say what I have to say briefly and frankly. The right hon. Gentleman has an individual responsibility to this House, but I should like to believe that that responsibility is shared by every Member of the House, and that the matter of pension administration is not merely a House of Commons responsibility but a national responsibility. I shall also speak briefly because I am anxious to hear the statement we are to get from the Minister in regard to the Present administrative situation. I think I can even now at this early stage of the Debate anticipate some of the things we shall be told to-night in order to justify the Ministry's present attitude to wards ex-service men.
I speak from the point of view of ex-service men, and I can assure all those hon. Members who take an interest in this question, that amongst the ex-service men to-day there is a most serious and growing feeling of unrest and suspicion with regard to the Ministry's methods of administration. From my point of view, I conceive that those suspicions are justified. I can hear the right hon.
Gentleman, when he speaks to-night, expressing, as he did on the last occasion when this subject was under discussion, his personal sympathy with the ex-service men and their dependants. But something more than sympathy is needed in this matter. I can readily believe that when he speaks he will be able to justify, out of the provisions of successive Royal Warrants and various Pensions Acts, every step he has taken in regard to changes of administrative methods. But if he is to rely on the terms of the Pensions Acts and the terms of Royal Warrants for justification of what is being done in the field of the administration of pensions, he will have justified completely, in my opinion, the very serious charges that are being made against that administration to-day. This matter of pensions is not a matter of the movement of a soulless, mechanical administrative machine groaning under legal enactments and under legal provisions. I know the official mind worships administrative rules and administrative regulations, but I do suggest that in this matter it would be better business and sounder economy to pay less attention to the letter of the law, and a little more attention to the spirit which should animate the administration of such a matter as pensions. I say it would be good business and good economy, as I cannot bring myself to the point of view at which one accepts the possibility that the recent changes in administrative methods are due to financial pressure from the Treasury. I do not believe that anyone will stand up and say that the taxpayers' pocket should be protected at the expense of the ex-service men and their dependants. We have to tolerate attacks whether we like them or not on the status of workers through the medium of the unemployment exchanges. We have to tolerate, even if we disapprove them, attacks on the status of workers' children in the field of education, but I can hardly believe it to be possible that we are now prepared to say that, in this matter, money, and even national money, should count in the scale against the interests of the ex-service men. We owe those men a bigger debt than we can ever hope to repay in money.
Let me try to state in a few words what I regard as the essence of this pressing administrative problem. Have hon. Members any knowledge of the position of local pensions committees at this moment? If they have they will agree
with me when I say that the position of members of these committees is steadily becoming intolerable. The local committees are becoming simply machines for the registration of Ministerial decrees, and it is just because the administrative machine has developed into a highly centralised legal machine that this trouble has arisen. There is a widespread feeling amongst ex-service men and amongst pensioners that the Pensions Ministry is a soulless, mechanical, official machine, and that it is making it its first business to place obstacles in the way of ex-service men in regard to their getting benefits rather than otherwise. My own experience teaches me that these obstacles exist. My strong feeling is that they need not exist and that the network of legal obstacles and Departmental rules and regulations, which have to be surmounted before claims for pensions are admitted and granted, should be swept away. The human element should count far more than the merely official and Departmental element. Of course the official mind will not accept the soundness of what I am saying. Perhaps at this stage I could remove any idea there may be in the mind of any Member of this House that the protest I am now making is made from a party point of view, or in order to score a mere political point at the expense of the Ministry. I have here in my hand a memorandum issued by one of the largest local pensions committees in the country, and I propose to quote just one paragraph from it in order to show what these committees are thinking with regard to this centralised administration. This is a memorandum from the Bristol Committee, and it reads:
My Committee feel very strongly about these matters.
The matters referred to are those upon which I have been commenting to-day—
We suggest that if economy is to be practised it should not be at the expense of men who have been made physical wrecks through War service. We do therefore ask for more sympathetic treatment of these men. We shall be obliged if the Committee will give some explanation of their change of policy. We ask for reconsideration of these matters which are giving rise to strong protest both from the men concerned and from those who have to administer these Regulations.
I could read further extracts from this Memorandum if necessary. What I want to insist upon is that local committees throughout the whole country are in more or less open revolt against the situation as it now exists, and the general grievances which were commented upon by the last speaker are, throughout the whole country, multiplying at a very alarming rate. I do not want to take up the time of the House by dealing with specific cases, because, if I did, the objection might be urged that I was dealing with exceptional cases, and that that is not a fair method of attack on the Ministry. I have dealt with scores of similar cases. I have particulars here of typical cases in which grievances arise purely on the ground of inefficient administrative methods; and the biggest difficulty, in my judgment, that we have to face and surmount at the present moment is the difficulty of breaking down this centralised administrative organisation, and vesting in the local committees a much larger measure of control than they have at the present moment. The local committees are far more capable of dealing with cases on their merits than a centralised authority. I know something of the manner in which eases are now dealt with by the Ministry. I have here documentary evidence which shows that cases passed by medical boards as eases in which the disability was due to or aggravated by War service have been considered by the Ministry at headquarters, and the decision of the medical authorities turned down. On what ground could such a decision possibly be reached? I could give, not one case of this sort, but many. The trouble is that the decisions are reached, I am certain, not always on medical grounds, not always even on the ground of the man's medical history, but in very many cases, I am afraid, on legal grounds, on interpretations put on a man's case and on his disability by people who look at these cases purely from the official and Departmental point of view.
I could occupy a great deal of time in detailing the grounds of grievance which ex-service men have to-day. I will take one as a sample of what ex-service men are enduring to-day, and I would ask the House to consider whether the difficulty that. I indicate in this matter is one that should be tolerated any longer.
This Memorandum of the Bristol War Pensions Committee draws attention to the trouble. It points out:
If a man allows 12 months to elapse before making a claim, it is invariably concluded that the disability has been contracted since his discharge, although the man has struggled through this time, hoping that his health would improve, and only appeals when he has completely broken down. If a man, however, during service, contracts tuberculosis and has been in hospital, he gets turned down as having contracted the disease before joining, although his medical record shows that he was class A on taking up service in the Army.
These tuberculosis cases are, in my opinion, the very worst type of case that we have to consider in this matter. The Ministry seems to be straining every effort in order to prove that tuberculosis cases are constitutional, that the tuberculosis is not the result of war service; and if, unhappily, a man after demobilisation allows even a few months to elapse before he reports his disability, the Ministry rejects his claim on the ground that he has contracted the trouble since demobilisation. Not one case, but hundreds of cases of that sort, have been turned down by the Ministry, and what does that indicate? I do not question the medical judgment on individual cases, but I do seriously say that this indicates that the Ministry, in its Regulations, is now putting difficulties and obstacles in the way of men claiming benefit and getting what, in my judgment, is their due. The Liverpool memorandum has been referred to. Does not that memorandum, without discussion of its merits at all, indicate that this trouble is far more widespread than the Ministry at the present moment appear to realise?
I want before I sit down to say just a word in regard to the position of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. Like the last speaker, I have hesitated many times before advising constituents of mine who have consulted me to avail themselves of the right to have their cases considered by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. I have had a suspicion for a long time that the Pensions Appeal Tribunal is much more useful to the Ministry of Pensions than to the ex-service man. It is useful to the Ministry of Pensions in this respect, that cases turned down by the Ministry are referred to the Appeal Tribunal, the claimants are urged to appeal to the tribunal, and the Ministry is able to wash its hands of responsibility
for the cases being turned down, even although the Minister will tell us tonight that be has no control whatever over the tribunal's findings. That is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs, and I suggest that we should get from the Minister what I think would be of some value, namely, a promise that for the future the decisions of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal shall not be the rigid unalterable decisions that they have been up to now. The Minister says that he has nothing to do with them. He has nothing to do with them in a statutory sense, but is it not a fact that the Pensions Appeal Tribunal is here as an institution through which the Minister of Pensions is able to whitewash his Department and to escape from his responsibilities? I agree that it is an independent authority in the sense that it is not under Departmental control; but the Minister of Pensions knows full well that claimants whose eases have been turned down by his Ministry are recommended to go to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, in order that their cases may be fully and finally considered, and he has no responsibility. I should say, however, that the nation has a responsibility for what is now being done by these tribunals. At any rate, I should hope that this would take place, and take place soon: that, where new evidence can be secured to substantiate a case, the decisions of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal shall not be regarded as final and binding, but that cases, even if they have been before the tribunal, shall be capable of being re-opened and reconsidered on their merits. That has not been a possibility in the past. I ask the House to believe that this is a serious matter for ex-service men to-day. I ask the House to remember, at a time when monuments are being erected all over the country to men who served the nation during the great War—and I approve of that—that the most enduring monument that we can erect to the memory of the men who served us is to ensure that none of them or their dependants shall suffer through our neglect of their interests.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: I am afraid that, if the House has followed what was said by the last two speakers about the Ministry of Pensions, it will get a totally wrong impression as to the feeling among ex-service men and disabled men generally throughout the country. It amounted to this, that they criticised the
Ministry of Pensions because it was efficient. The whole of their argument was devoted to that. They said that the Ministry is acting in strict accordance with the Royal Warrant, and in strict accordance with the legal interpretations of the Law Officers of the Crown as to that Warrant; and, therefore, it is to be condemned as being a soulless, inhuman machine, with the official mind, and all the rest of the paraphernalia of phrase of which Labour Members are so fond. The whole essence of their criticism is simply that. They criticise the Ministry because it is doing its duty thoroughly, without fear or favour.
I say more. The last speaker really gave away the complete case of hon. Members opposite. He hinted very definitely that what he and his colleagues want is a re-introduction of the system which was initiated in the administration of pensions by the present Secretary of State for War when he was Minister of Pensions. They want that decentralisation, that putting in the hands of local committees of enormous powers of patronage in regard to pensions—a policy which the whole of this House practically repudiated as soon as it had the opportunity, a policy which put local Members of Parliament, members of local authorities, and members of pensions committees, in a position, at the expense of the taxpayers generally, to exercise patronage for the fulfilment of their own selfish political ambitions. The last speaker made that perfectly clear. He said, "We want more power"—more power of patronage, that is—"given to the local committees." I do hope that that state of affairs will never come about in this country. We have before us the lesson of the administration of the American Civil War pensions in that country, an administration based very largely upon local patronage, and, therefore, leading to the imposition of an enormous burden upon the unfortunate taxpayers of that country, and to the greatest injustice that there can be in pensions' administration—the injustice which results in men who do not deserve, and are not entitled to, a pension obtaining one at the expense of their fellow citizens. Therefore, I hope that the Ministry of Pensions and this House will be firm on that point, and will not take any steps whatsoever to go back to that
absurd and wrong and corrupt policy which was initiated before the present Minister of Pensions took office—the policy of giving into the hands of politicians what hon. Members opposite are really demanding, namely, the power of bestowing pensions upon men who are not really entitled to them, in order that, by obtaining that patronage, they may fulfil their own political ambitions.

Mr. J. GUEST: I do not intend to attempt to reply to the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), except to say that I have heard him on several occasions, and I am fast approaching the position of one who realises that no person and no party in this House can raise any subject without having, shall I say, party motives or vote-catching motives attributed to them except the hon. Member for Mossley. He is the Simon Pure of the House. At all times and in all circumstances he is the gentleman who is right. That is his attitude on this question of pensions. I want, very briefly, in supporting this Amendment, to refer first of all to the question of the deductions which have been made in thousands of cases from the pay of men, on the ground that at some previous period they have received an over-payment. I put down a question this afternoon with reference to this matter, and I am not satisfied with the reply that I received. It was to the effect, in the first place, that such a deduction was justified by the Royal Warrant, and that, in the second place, these deductions were only made after the most careful inquiry and with due regard to the circumstances of the pensioner from whom the money was being deducted. The first point is, to my mind, doubtful, in view of the decision in the Law Courts during the last week. On the second point, I am not doubtful at all. There is no question that in many cases these deductions have been made without full and adequate inquiry, and there is no question, further, that in many cases these deductions have been made from persons who, after the deduction has been made, are left without even the means for the barest possible existence. That may not be the desire of the Minister or of the Parliamentary Secretary. I should not like to say or suggest that it is. But I do say that in our experience we are being brought face to face with these conditions weekly.
I want to quote a ease which has come within my own knowledge during the past few weeks, and which will, I think, illustrate the point. A discharged man suffering from heart and chest trouble in my own constituency was recommended by a medical officer for institutional treatment. He accepted the institutional treatment, as indeed he was bound to do. Had he not accepted it he would have been liable to have his pension reduced as one who was not doing his best to recover his health and to become fit for work. He was sent to an institution approved by the Ministry for the treatment of cases such as his, namely, the sanatorium at Middleton, in Wharfedale. After three or four months' treatment he was discharged considerably improved in health. During the time he was there his treatment allowance had been paid to his wife and family. After he came out he was examined by a further medical officer attached to the Ministry who, finding him considerably improved, decided that the officer who had recommended him for the treatment had made a mistake, and that the treatment that he had received was not what he would term appropriate treatment, and the Ministry, I suppose, acting on the decision of that medical officer, decided that as the treatment had not been appropriate treatment the treatment allowance had not been properly paid, and they instituted a system of deduction from his pay. I am at a loss to understand how that can be justified. The man stood to lose in either case. Had he refused to accept the treatment he would have been treated as a malingerer and a deduction would have been made. He accepted the treatment and was benefited by it and came home somewhat restored in health to find that he was treated as an offender, and a deduction was made from his 30 per cent. pension.
That is not the only case I could quote. There are more within my own constituency. I agree it is time something was done to bring home to officials of the Ministry that they are not acting as Parliament would desire them to act in this matter, or as the nation would desire them to act. I am still prepared to believe that the great heart of the nation beats sound towards these men who served and suffered for them. They are anxious that they should have given to them in every case what
was always promised, that in doubtful matters they should have the benefit of the doubt. I have come to the conclusion that in actual practice, in doubtful matters, the Ministry have taken the benefit and the man has had to suffer.
I should like to say a word or two in reference to the case of the man who is in receipt of a partial disability pension—who may be receiving a pension for 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. disability— according to the medical opinion, disabled to the extent of three-tenths or two-fifths of his working capacity, though in actual practice, looking upon him as a candidate for work, and having to place his ability in the labour market, it often proves a total disablement. He is unable to get work, and in consequence these men who were to be heroes, who were our real patriots, had been compelled to seek Poor Law relief, and in my own district scarcely a week goes by but I receive resolutions from boards of guardians protesting against the amount of relief they are having to pay to discharged men or their dependants. I know the Minister would say, "What would you have me do; would you have every man on full pay?" So far as I see this matter, I should say the national obligation to these men is to see that they have work provided suitable to their disability or for the State to accept the full responsibility and provide them with the means to lead a respectable life—one or the other. I should prefer the suitable work. I think it, would be best for the men. But in the absence of suitable work the State has no right to evade its responsibility and to foist it on the boards of guardians and the local rates. That is what is being done.
I should like to say a word with reference to a matter which is hotly denied from that bench, but which many of us know to be a fact, and that is the gradual hardening and cutting-down policy which is being pursued by the Ministry and its officials in reference to pensions. I know that every time the matter is brought up the point is denied. I know from actual experience in the districts and among the men, without exception, that a cutting-down policy is in operation, and that men are being deprived of their just and legitimate rights. That is not a personal or party opinion. I wish the hon. Member (Mr.
Hopkinson) could come into my division and meet the board of guardians, which, at all events, is not composed of a majority of Labour men. They would tell him quite frankly what is their experience, and they would tell him they believe they have been unduly burdened because the Ministry is pursuing a cutting-down policy and is not carrying out its obligations to these men. In the area I represent, without regard to party or to politics, in asserting that these men are not being treated justly, as they are entitled to be, I speak for the whole division. I speak for employers of labour, for boards of guardians, and for everyone with whom I am brought into contact. The ex-service men themselves, and practically the whole population, are filled with bitterness and with resentment, because they feel that the ex-service man is not being treated in accordance with promises which were made to him when he was induced to enlist, and he is not being treated in accordance with the promises which were made to him at the last election, that the nation would not fail in its duty to those who had served it best.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. WARREN: However much we admire the ability and the versatility of the hon. Member (Mr. Hopkinson) on the many occasions on which he amuses the House by the remarks he has to make, we strongly protest against the cold-blooded, unsympathetic attitude adopted by him in this question of pensions and the operations of the Pensions Ministry. There can hardly be a Member of the House who, during the last few years, has not had brought very prominently before him the difficulties arising in respect to the administration of pensions and the hardships which have been experienced by those who have served us, and in serving us have saved the country. I want to enter my very strong protest against mere lip service. We eulogised the men who went to the colours, we lauded them to the seventh Heaven as the men who were saving the women and children and the civilisation of the world. There, again, my hon. Friend shows his unsympathy, because he wishes we had not. Whether he wishes it or not we did, and the fact remains, and I for one hold them in great reverence, despite the cold-blooded, unsympathetic attitude of my hon. Friend, be-
cause as an old man I deliberately say I have built an altar in my heart to the men who served this country and, whether it be openly or not, I pay reverence to them every day, and I feel it incumbent upon me to have regard to the service they have rendered and in every possible way to endeavour to see that the disabilities which are crowding round them are removed, and I rise in order to say deliberately to the Ministry of Pensions, "Do not shield yourselves behind the tribunal. Do not set up your tribunal as a buffer." That has been so frequently our experience in regard to Government Departments, even before I came into the House, when I had to do with matters concerning the administration of this country, that you set up this and that Committee and this and the other tribunal, and then the Ministry, when a question is raised, says, "We can do nothing, because it is the finding of the tribunal."
I know there are scores of cases of men who are trying to impose themselves upon the funds of the country, but there are thousands of cases of the other kind. At this very moment I have a very grave and serious case with the Ministry of Pensions. It has been turned down by the tribunal. I have no doubt the answer will be "The Ministry can do nothing because the tribunal's findings are such and such." I say, as an honest and candid man, if they shield themselves behind that they are not doing their duty to the men who served this country and who helped us in the hour of our need, and therefore I am seriously concerned when men take up a cold, calculating, hard attitude, because if these men, let them be what they may, had not served the country we should not be sitting under this roof to-day. Therefore let us have a larger element of consideration and charity towards these men. I say to the representative of the Ministry of Pensions, "Do not camouflage this thing; do not shield yourselves behind the tribunal. Deal with all these cases upon their merits, and upon the just requirements, and where matters have supervened on their service—tuberculosis or other disability—treat them as men, and mete out to them that which they have a right to expect from us if we have any sense of gratitude for the service they have rendered."

7.0 P. m.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: I was interested to hear the suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. Hopkinson) that this matter has been raised on these Benches in a more or less corrupt way. I should like to ask a question or two of the Minister in connection with that aspect of the matter. I want to know whether there is any corruption in operation. I want to know whether the constituents of Coalition Members are being better treated than the constituents of Members on this side. If they are, there seems to be some sort of corruption. Are all the men who went from Mosley being treated fairly in the way of pensions? Are they being better treated at Mosley than at Hamilton? It may be they are because the hon. Member who represents that Division votes with the Government and they are not being treated fairly in Hamilton because the Member for Hamilton votes against them. I do not know. I am sure the Minister of Pensions and the vast majority of hon. Members will not for a moment imagine that we have raised this matter from any corrupt or political motive. We honestly believe that all hon. Members, no matter to what party they belong or on which side of the House they sit, are troubled with the same difficulty in regard to the men whom they sincerely believe have a. right to have their pensions continued, but find themselves being deprived of them. How are they deprived? I am making no complaint against the Pensions Minister, I think he is the victim of circumstances. I have always obtained quite reasonable and satisfactory treatment from him, so far as he could go. The unfortunate thing is that he cannot go very far. He comes up against the doctor. I am not dealing with the tribunals at present, but I want to say something about the medical boards. Who are they? What are they? Is there anybody who has any faith in them? Has any soldier or any Member of Parliament any faith in them? I am a Member of Parliament, and I have absolutely no faith in the doctors who form the medical hoard in Glasgow, and I have a good reason. Has not the medical man who is the panel doctor of a soldier or ex-soldier gone through the same scholastic training, attended the university, and undergone the same severe study in order to secure a degree entitling him to act as a doctor? Judging
from reports I have received from those who have served long years in the Army, the ordinary civilian doctor is very much superior to the doctor in the Army. Here we have a panel doctor certifying that men are unfit to work because of services rendered in the Army during the War, and that their present disability is either caused or aggravated by such service. These men go to the medical boards, and the medical boards say, "Go back to your panel doctors. You are not fit to work, but you are not entitled to get any pension or treatment allowance. You may be in poverty, you may be in starvation, but, so far as we are concerned, you can either get from the parochial authorities sufficient to maintain you, or you can starve."
I venture to say that if anybody is corrupt at all in this matter it is the members of the Government who, in 1918, pledged themselves that the treatment to be meted out to the men who served during the last Great War should be very different from that accorded to the men who served in previous wars. We all professed to he shocked at the treatment received by those of our fathers who served in the Crimean and Peninsular Wars. We solemnly swore before God Almighty that we would not act in that way so far as the men who fought in the last War were concerned; but now we have an amount of misery in the country, in consequence of the evil treatment that ex-soldiers and ex-pensioners are receiving, which is a standing disgrace to hon. Members of this House. It may be that the tribunal has a power superior to that of the Minister of Pensions. Nobody here knows the tribunal, but we do know the Minister of Pensions. He is responsible to this House, and if the tribunals are giving what we believe and know to be unsatisfactory decisions, it is clearly the duty of hon. Members to change the law, so that the Minister shall have control over the tribunals, and we shall have some control over him. The onus of proving that a claim for a pension by a man who rendered services during the War is fraudulent and unreasonable ought to lie with the Ministry.
When a man has served, and finds himself in this position because of his service, it ought not to be his duty to prove his case; the other side should have to prove that his case is wrong. They do not do.
so. It is peculiarly unfair so far as that particular industry with which I am associated is concerned. A miner may be fit for light employment, but, because he is fit for light employment, he may not be, and certainly is not fit for his ordinary employment. Over 400,000 went into the War from the mining industry. A large number of them have returned very much less skilful and able physically than they went away. At the present time there are more men in the industry than the employers can find work for, and the first men who are turned off, or the men who are the least likely to get a job, are the ex-soldiers. They are told that they are fit for light employment, but no light employment can be obtained. If a man went into the Army in 1914, and served during the four years of the War, and if at the end of that time he is found to be unfit to follow his usual occupation, then a duty rests on the Government—whether it is composed of hon. Members from this side of the House or from that—and upon every citizen of the country to provide the means to insure that such a man's position will not be worsened in consequence of the services he has rendered.
I do not know what the Minister of Pensions is going to say, but I hope it will he something different from what he has always said in dealing with this matter. I hope he will say that the Government intend to adopt some plan to insure that at least even-handed fair-play will be given to the ex-soldier, and that he shall not be bandied from pillar to post. He should not be sent first to a medical board, which does not say he is unfit or fit for work, but sends him home to his panel doctor. He then goes back to the panel doctor, who says he can work. Then he makes application to the Labour Ministry and gets nothing. Possibly he has to go to the parish authority, and the local ratepayers have to maintain him, whereas it should have been a pleasure for the country to find the money to keep this man, of whom it was said that he had rendered such service that it was impossible to give him sufficient honour and reward. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give some indication of his intentions. We are not making a protest on behalf of the Labour party but on behalf of the whole of the House. We are all equally anxious that the Pensions Minister should state that the Government policy in future
should either be to make good the promise of 1918 to these men who served the country, or that the authorities themselves should have to prove that the men were fit to continue the work they were doing prior to joining up. I hope that some good result will arise from this Debate.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): Hon. Members who have taken part in the Debate have put forward a number of very important points in reference to pensions, and it is conceded by everyone that we are as much interested in the welfare of ex-service men as are they. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Sir A. Warren), who spoke eloquently about the people who only pay lip service to the cause of pensions, went out of the House immediately after his speech, and is not here to listen on behalf of his constituents to the reply from the Government. Hon. Members have talked of the new policy of cutting down and of placing obstacles in the way of men getting pensions. At this moment, however, we are admitting to pension fresh claims at the rate of 300 every week. That is not in accordance with the criticisms which have been made. Of that number, from 15 to 20 are cases of tuberculosis each week. Moreover, we have brought in special provisions dealing with tuberculosis cases, and we are carrying on these men at specially high rates of pension for longer periods than other cases. We are treating these cases on specially favourable terms, because even when a man is discharged from hospital he gets 100 per cent. pension for six months, although he is very much better, and 50 per cent. for two years, even though he may be well.
With reference to the general reform of the Ministry, it hardly seems to me fair that hon. Members in this House should criticise in such adverse terms an entirely new reform which was carried, I think, unanimously, by the House on all the Readings of the Bill, and which has only just been put into operation. In Scotland the new areas are practically completed, but in some parts of England the scheme is not yet in operation. Yet, before this new system is working at all, it is eloquently condemned by hon. Members who neither criticised it or voted against it originally.

Mr. LAWSON: I criticised it, very definitely.

Major TRYON: I am speaking of the great, change of areas, and of the new system of reconstruction and local administration. That new system is only beginning its operation, and many of the examples quoted to-day date from prior to that change. It is impossible to condemn a system before it has begun to work. We are told that this is a change of policy in regard to pensions. It is no change of policy whatever. We are working the warrants as we have always worked them. Not only that, but, so far from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions being dominated by officials, as has been said, though I have not consulted him, I say that he and I are quite prepared to stand here and take the responsibility upon ourselves. We in no way wish to throw the blame on the officials. That is not a fair line of criticism. Blame us, if you like, but not the officials. We are responsible to the House.

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): Hear, hear!

Major TRYON: So far from being dominated by officials, and from being solely concerned with economy, I would point out that we had at the Ministry a Committee, of which I had the honour of being Chairman, which completed what hon. Members now say we ought to begin to do. Some hon. Members do not realise that this was a complete overhaul of the Pensions Ministry, or that it was complete before they suggested it should be done. They do not realise that the whole spirit of that inquiry, conducted by me on behalf of my right hon. Friend, was that there should be no economy at the expense of the pensioners, but that the entire economy should be made and pushed to the utmost on the cost of administration. Moreover, when we see this year lower Estimates, we must remember that there are various reasons for those reductions, such as children getting beyond the pensionable age, and widows remarrying. About one-fourth of the widows have remarried. There are also reductions through administrative reforms. For instance, the very system which has been criticised, of having areas instead of the old local committees, is estimated in the present year to bring about a reduction in expenditure of £300,000. There are reforms in many other ways which are bringing about
reductions in the cost of administration, but during my right hon. Friend's term of office those reforms and economies will never be made at the cost of the pensioners.
It is said that there have been wholesale reductions of pensions, and that there is a new system of cutting down pensions. That is absolutely and totally inaccurate. All that is happening is this: We have medical boards, and we have cases of men who are getting better and of men who are getting worse. Thousands of men are getting increased pensions. You never hear of them; but when there is a case where, as a result of enormous expenditure on the part of the State in the provision of skilled medical attention and so on, it man gets better and his pension is reduced, you hear of it. Never do you hear of the thousands of eases where the pensions have been increased.

Mr. D. GRAHAM: That does not exist in Glasgow.

Major TRYON: It would be wiser if the hon. Member waited to hear the whole of the facts, without interrupting. A short time ago—I have not the full facts up to date—over the whole range of the medical boards the net percentage reduction of the assessments was only 4 per cent., and the last figure I saw was a little less than that. Therefore, the reduction as a result of the medical boards was only 4 per cent., and was gradually tending to become less. The moment a man's pension is reduced one hears of it.

Mr. WATERSON: That is the time to hear of it, and not when an increase is made. There is no complaint when there is an increase.

Major TRYON: Of course, there is no complaint then. Very strong statements have been made, based on isolated and often unverified cases, but these must be judged in the light of the fact that over the whole range of pensions the reduction of assessments has been extremely small. It is absolutely untrue to say that it is a soulless official machine. Those who speak so eloquently for the ex-service men bring a very serious charge against ex-service men in that respect. Of all the temporary staff working throughout these committees, who are doing their best to help the ex-service men, 99 per
cent. are ex-service men. These are described as soulless officials.

Mr. D. GRAHAM: Will you take a ballot of the ex-service men?

Mr. LAWSON: I asked a very definite question when I spoke. I asked what was the composition of the ex-service men in the staff conference and in the higher places in the Ministry?

Major TRYON: Of the whole temporary staff of the Ministry, about 99 per cent. are ex-service men. A large number of distinguished men in charge of the regions hold high office, and some of these men have held positions of great responsibility in the naval and military service of the Crown. Therefore, the charge that those who are in our offices throughout the country are soulless officials, is a charge made directly against ex-service men when they find themselves in the employment of the Ministry of Pensions, and that is a charge which ought never to have been made. The proposals made by some hon. Members would lead to absolute chaos in the country. One proposal is to sweep away regulations. How can you have an equitable administration of pensions in districts unless you have some sort of regulation? Another proposal was to allow the old local committees the power of deciding pensions. The old committees were abolished by the Bill of last year. The charge as to deliberate attempts to economise at the expense of the pensioners is absolutely untrue. Necessarily, some pensions are reduced and some pensions are increased; but the charge is untrue, because it is contrary to the figures, which show that the net reduction over all the medical boards is only four per cent. on the total assessment.
It is a little difficult to reply to certain points, because I had no notice from hon. Members that they were going to raise the particular points, but there is the Liverpool memorandum which has for a long time past been in the possession of my right hon. Friend, and we have been going into questions which it raises and also going fully into the question of the seven years' limit and other points. We have been at work steadily on this for some time. I spent the whole of this morning and yesterday on one of these points. If the House will allow me, I will give some particulars as to how
far we have got in endeavouring to solve the particular problems which have been raised in this Debate. With regard to the complaint about the withdrawal of grants for the education of children, the position is this:
The Special Grants Committee, in administering grants for education, were always limited under their rules of working by the condition that the education which it was proposed to provide for the children by means of the grant, was such as the father would have been able to afford to give. The Controller and Auditor-General called attention to many cases of obvious irregularity in which the grants had actually been paid, and which he was unable to pass at audit.
That is why hon. Members hear of these individual cases. We were challenged for having wrongly paid out public money to certain cases.
The matter had to be gone into very carefully in conjunction with the Treasury and the Special Grants Committee. The result was that a compromise was reached, at the instance of the Ministry, which involved the cancellation of only three hundred grants wrongly given out of the many thousands of grants which had been made by the Special Grants Committee.
I may add that these education grants have not been abolished or stopped in any way. New grants are still being made. What has been stopped is the payment of certain grants in cases where they have been made outside the regulations and were not properly authorised.
We have no authority to administer public money except in accordance with the Regulations which have been approved by the Department responsible for the public purse, namely, the Treasury. We have directed that special care should be taken in dealing with the cancellation of grants, and special consideration should be given to a case, for example, where a considerable time has already been spent in the child's education, and only a comparatively short time, for instance, a year or so, is still necessary to complete the education. It would be both a hardship to the child and false economy to cancel the grant. Regard must be had to the nature of the education, namely, the kind of school in which the education is being given. For example, a case in which a child receiving secondary or technical education is on a different footing from one in which the child is merely receiving education at a preparatory school which could be equally well given in a public elementary school.
In regard to the question of removal from duty, the hon. Member who raised the point is under a complete misapprehension.
The suggestion made in the Liverpool Memorandum that in the new Warrant,
signed on the 21st June last, steps were taken by the Pensions Ministry to legalise, "with secrecy," an entirely new interpretation of the words removal from duty ' is wholly erroneous. The term 'removal from duty' has consistently been interpreted by the Ministry and by the War Office before this Ministry took over the work as the occasion of first removal from duty, and it was solely in order to make the position clear that these words were inserted. The principle involved is, speaking generally, a sound one. The State undertakes to give compensation by way of pension to those widows only who had been married before their husbands sustained the injury which ultimately led to their death. It is clearly not a reasonable liability for the State to be required to give compensation in the event of death where the man had married when he was manifestly not in a condition to undertake with any security the obligation of support involved by his marriage.
At the same time we have fully recognised that there are exceptional cases in which aggravation of the pre-marriage disability has been caused by subsequent service, the man having, in such cases, contracted his marriage when, to all appearances, he had recovered from the effects of the original disability. In cases of this class, in which it is clear that the man, after marriage, was returned either to general service or to service of such character as did not clearly indicate that he was permanently and materially in a worse physical condition than before the original disability was sustained, we are empowered to give a pension at suitable rates where aggravation by subsequent service is shown.

Mr. LAWSON: Does the hon. and gallant Member say that it has been the usual practice to interpret the "removal from duty" as the first time when he was removed from duty? Most people connected with the administration of pensions will be very surprised to hear a statement of that kind.

Major TRYON: My information is that, not only has it been the practice, but it was the practice of the War Office before we took over the work.

Lord R. CECIL: As I understand the grievance complained of, and it is a serious one, it is this, that if a man goes to hospital and while in hospital he marries and then he goes back to duty, that his widow is deprived of the pension.

Major TRYON: That is not the point specifically raised. It is a point in regard to the wife. On that point she may become eligible, in the event of illness being aggravated by subsequent service. Another point is that of the seven years:
The Liverpool Memorandum suggests an amendment of the Warrant, and apparently
this amendment would take the form of the removal of the time limit of seven rears altogether from Article 11. The seven years' time limit is a provision of old standing in the Pension Warrant before the days of the Ministry, and was adopted for two very good reasons, namely:

(a) That the grant of compensation at the special rate of one-half (or in some cases two-thirds) of the maximum rate of the man's disablement pension, which is now given by Article 11 of the Warrant, was intended only for those cases in which the death of the officer or man either occurred in action, or within such a limit of time in cases of disease, as made it pretty clear that the death had resulted directly from the officer's or man's service; and
(b) because, with the lapse of time from the man's discharge from service, it becomes increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to disentangle the other conditions of his civil life, work and personal habits, from the effects of the disability in bringing about death.
The original time limit was two years, and this was later extended to seven years.
That answers to some extent the point made in the Liverpool Memorandum that owing to the greater resources of medical science the man may live longer.
The time limit was extended to seven years in order to allow the fullest margin of time within which the man's death could really be certified to be due to his service. We are assured by our medical advisers that in very rare eases earl it be said, after the seven year period, with any degree of accuracy, that the death is wholly duo to, service. To do away with the time limit of seven years, in Article 11, altogether would mean that widows of men who have themselves never claimed a pension during their lifetime would be able to claim a pension under Article 11, although the death might have occurred 10 or 20 years after the discharge from service. Moreover, it would mean giving pensions to widows of men who had merely developed some complaint during service which had nothing whatever to do with their service, when the men themselves were not entitled to pension during their lifetime. Finally, the proposal would mean a very large, steadily increasing addition amounting to many millions to the annual cost of widows pensions not justified by any real connection with the War. The eases which the Liverpool Memorandum has in view are already dealt with by way of pension under Article 17 of the Warrant, but that Article in its present form does not in our opinion deal satisfactorily with some of the cases which merit special consideration.
We have been working at this steadily, and it is a much more difficult problem than it would appear to those who have not gone carefully into the question, because we want to relieve those who are
most deserving, and not to open the door so wide as to admit men who have no claim against the State.

Major BREESE: Does that mean that the Ministry has in contemplation an alteration of the Warrant?

Major TRYON: I put the exact position to my hon. and gallant Friend:
We have been for some time past endeavouring to find a solution to this question and are engaged in preparing a scheme now which will, I hope, meet the difficulty on equitable lines.
I am sorry to have detained the House so long, but these matters are of vital importance. We have had a very important memorandum issued from Liverpool as to the actual position. There is talk in that memorandum about an undertaking being given in 1916:
No undertaking was given to the House in 1916 with regard to need pensions because this class of pension did not then exist. The discussion in the House, which is referred to by the Liverpool memorandum, arose in connection with pre-War dependence pensions and supplements to those pensions by the Statutory Committee, and Mr. McKenna rightly stated that as regards the pre-War dependence pensions the State did not wish to take advantage of private benefaction. The pre-War dependence pension was based on the actual amount which the son had contributed before his death or before enlistment to his parent. In regard to this class of pension the undertaking given has been faithfully observed by this Department. Need pensions are on a different footing from pre-War dependence pensions, but in regard to these also the instruction given by my Department make it quite clear that temporary and occasional grants from private funds are disregarded. On the other hand we are bound to take into account—because the need pension is based on the average existing circumstances of the claimant—regular income from whatever source it is derived. The basis of need pension as recommended by the Select Committee on Pensions to the House was the amount of support which the deceased son might reasonably be expected to give had he survived. This principle was approved by the House and it is on this principle that need pensions are at present being administered.

Mr. LAWSON: Will that document be laid?

Major TRYON: It will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Suggestions have been made that we are in some way sheltering ourselves behind the Appeal Tribunal. Those criticisms ought never to be made
by any Member of the House of Commons. Anybody who makes them should remember that this tribunal was set up on the insistent demand of the ex-service men themselves, and sweeping it away would mean that we should have to deal with the matter, and they would have no right of appeal to anybody.

Mr. SEXTON: And a good job too.

Major TRYON: If you swept away the tribunals, you would find yourself at variance with the organised bodies of ex-service men, because you would deprive them of a right which is not merely valuable, but has led to the granting of large numbers of pensions which otherwise would not have been given.

Mr. SEXTON: And to refusals.

Major TRYON: I see what the complaint is. The hon. Member says that there have been refusals. What sort of tribunal would it be if there were no refusals? It means that if anybody applies for anything he is to get it. We do not shelter ourselves behind the tribunals. They are not a body of our creation. They were set up by the House of Commons over us, and by their decision we are bound. In large numbers of cases pensions are granted by those tribunals, and we have to pay whether we agree with the findings of the tribunal or not, and their decisions are final. The hon. Member says that everybody is getting so disgusted with the tribunals that his constituents will not go to them. With a number of ex-service men and others we went into this whole question some time ago, and so far from the tribunals being less used than before the increase in the number of cases a year or nine months ago was so great that we had to increase the number from 12 to 24 in order to do the work.

Mr. LAWSON: Will the Minister of Pensions lay this memorandum as a White Paper?

Major TRYON: Certainly.

Mr. MACPHERSON: We will take which ever is the more convenient course. If my hon. Friend has read it accurately it will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but if there is any question at all we shall be very glad to give it to the House.

Mr. ADAMSON: The Parliamentary Secretary in his opening remarks expressed a considerable amount of indignation at the fact that some who were taking part in the Debate were criticising the Ministry of Pensions, and he pointed out that the Minister was just as anxious to secure justice for the ex-service men as any section of Members of this House could be. I do not think that there has been very keen personal criticism either of the Minister of Pensions or the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself. The burden of complaint has been that, whether it is the fault of the system which has been gradually built up or of the Ministry or of the officials who are working out this system in the Ministry, there are very large numbers of ex-service men in this country who are not getting justice and it is the duty of every section of this House to bring that before the Pensions Minister and to try to get these, cases remedied at the earliest possible moment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman also stated, with the view, I think, of proving that there was not very much in the complaints that had been made by my hon. Friends and others, that so far from the number of difficult cases increasing they were diminishing. At least the figures that he quoted led me to believe that that was the argument which he wanted to convey, because, he said, we are granting pensions at the rate of 300 per week.
That may be true. I have no means of contraverting that figure. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is in a far better position to give the exact figure than any private Member. But one thing equally important which I notice is that he did not tell the House of the number of men whose claims to pensions had been already recognised who have been cut off. It would be very important to get that figure. It is that type of case that has already been dealt with by myself and others in this House. The point which I am about to raise now, I suppose, I must address rather to the Attorney-General than to the Ministry of Pensions. It refers to the growing number of ex-service men whose cases are considered by all the machinery set up by the Ministry of Pensions, and are finally disposed of by the final appeal board by whom their claims are dismissed, generally on the ground that their present
condition is not attributable to, and has not been aggravated by, War service.
Many of these men and their dependants are in very straitened circumstances at the moment. In many instances they are either dependent upon friends or upon the parish council in Scotland or the board of guardians in England. There is no more tragic figure to-day in our national life than the man who has put his all into the service of the State during the War, and, in the course of performing that service, has either contracted some form of disease or has been wounded, and is no longer able to maintain himself and his dependants. We were frequently told in this House and in the country, in the course of the War, that we were to put in the last man and the last shilling in order to come victorious through the conflict. Well I do know that we pretty well put in the last man.

Captain GEE: We kept the "conchies" out.

Mr. ADAMSON: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman applies that to me, he had better reserve his judgment.

Captain GEE: The party whom you represent.

Mr. ADAMSON: Or even the party I represent. We have by no means carried out the other promise, to put in the last shilling. We certainly have not carried it out in the case of the men who have been disabled, for many of them are left to bear entirely on their own shoulders a burden that ought to be borne jointly by the State and themselves. The number of these men is growing and their cases will have to be dealt with, whether or not the Pensions Minister decides that that shall be done. There is growing up among the ex-service men and among the general public of this country such a strong feeling of dissatisfaction with the rapidly-growing number of such eases that it will compel the doing of something, whether the Pensions Minister and the Attorney-General are or are not willing that it should be done. I know that I may be met with the answer that the cases of these men have gone through all the machinery set up by the Ministry, that they have finally come to the Appeal Board, which is an institution outside the control of the Ministry of Pensions,
and that the final decision has been that the condition of the applicants is neither attributable to nor aggravated by war service. That is a very poor consolation to the man who finds himself, after three or four years of war service, unable to maintain himself and his dependants. I do not care how carefully these cases may have been investigated. There are bound to be mistakes made, and there ought to be some machinery for dealing further with them. They ought to be dealt with by someone who is responsible to this House. There are cases of men who, before enlisting, never had a day's illness in their working lives. During their military service, or subsequent to it, they were attacked by disease which they know they contracted during the War.
Is it to be wondered at that you have growing dissatisfaction among these men when their cases are turned down? Is it to be wondered at that there is dissatisfaction among the dependants of men who were forced into the Army, although they knew that they were medically unfit, and in many cases were able to produce medical certificates to that effect? In the course of their service they aggravated the diseases from which they suffered, and eventually they died. Is it to be wondered at that their dependants should be dissatisfied? There is a considerable number of such cases in my own constituency, as in every other constituency. I have no intention of going into details, but I will give two examples. The first is the case of a trooper in the Yeomanry, who enlisted in April, 1915. He was medically unfit, and was so certified by his own medical attendant. Nevertheless, he was declared to be in a sufficiently high category for the Army. In consequence of the faulty construction of the hut in which this man was placed, the illness from which he had suffered was aggravated, and to such an extent that he died within two months of his enlistment. His widow and his children, who had been struggling to keep on his business, had eventually to give it up. The widow was granted a temporary pension of 15s. a week for herself, but received nothing for the children. That temporary pension will end after a certain period. The case has gone through all the machinery set up by the Ministry of Pensions, and eventually it found its
way to the Final Appeal Board, which turned it down. Nothing can be granted to the children.
Take another case. It is that of a man now 37 years of age, the father of seven children. He served for four years in France and during the terrible time on the French Front contracted a certain disease. He came home and has never been able to do the work of a miner since. His case went through all the machinery of the Pensions Ministry, and finally reached the Appeal Board and was turned down. Such cases I could multiply to an enormous extent from my own constituency. They could be multiplied by the thousand from other constituencies. The number of such cases is becoming alarming. The matter will demand the attention of the Minister of Pensions and of the Attorney-General and of others who are responsible. They may reply, "What do you suggest should be done?" I have a suggestion to make. I make it as one who places very little reliance, on the Appeal Board. It would be very difficult to convince the House, the Minister of Pensions or the Attorney-General that we should depart from the system of Appeal Boards. Consequently, I suggest the improvement of that system in a way which will lead to a reconsideration of the cases. The suggestion is that the Attorney-General should set up a National Appeal Board, to which there can he referred cases which have been turned down by the area Appeal Boards.
8.0 P.M.
Under the ordinary law cases turned down in one Court go to another and a higher Court, and when all the Courts have dealt with them there is still the opportunity of appeal to the House of Lords. We want some such parallel as that. What I suggest would at least give the men concerned the satisfaction of knowing that there would be another hearing of all the circumstances of their cases. I suggest, further, that before this National Appeal Board the parties interested should be represented. I know that before the present Appeal Board they can be represented, but, as I am reminded, it is by payment, and in many cases they are not represented. They ought to be represented before this National Board, so that their cases may be sifted by people more competent than themselves to present intricate details of the kind. I make the suggestion in all seriousness, believing that it will go a
considerable way towards solving the difficulty with which we are faced so far as many thousands of ex-service men are concerned. The day is not far distant when the Government will require to deal with this matter, because I can assure them that a very bitter spirit is growing up which must be met and dealt with and treated on lines of justice and fair play. I believe the suggestion that I have made would go a long way in the direction of meeting the needs of the class of ex-service men who are affected.

Mr. THOMAS DAVIES (Cirencester): The Ministry has been attacked from every direction in the course of this evening. Possibly it will he a little change if someone who has at least as much experience as anyone on the opposite benches gives the result of his experiences. I am the secretary of a society which lost over 600 men killed in the War and had over 2,000 of its members suffering either from wounds or bad health. I have been chairman of a war pensions committee for some years, and I had my own offices turned into the central recruiting office of the Cirencester Division of Gloucester. That being so, my experience has been at least as great as that of any of the hon. Members who have condemned the Ministry this evening in unmeasured terms. Let me say at once, as far as the personnel of the Ministry is concerned—whether it be the Minister himself, the Parliamentary Secretary or the staff at the office of the Ministry—I have visited them all personally, frequently; I have also frequently corresponded with them, and I have taken up something like 600 cases with them, and in every single case I have been met with the greatest possible sympathy. I am speaking of the Ministry as I find it, and hon. Gentlemen opposite can speak of it as they find it, but I wish to bear my testimony, which is perfectly independent, to the fact that nothing could exceed the courtesy, the kindness, and the promptitude with which the various matters brought by me before the Ministry have been dealt with. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"]
I do not mean to say that in every single case I have been satisfied with their decision, but I do say, that as far as the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary and the chief officials are con-
cerned, nothing could exceed their courtesy, kindness and promptitude. While I did not agree with every decision they made, I will say this, that when I disagreed with their decisions, I visited the Ministry and had further communications with them, and I have always found that the cases concerned were just on the border line, and that very little would have turned the decision one way or the other. I want to go a step further, and to say—though in no offensive way—that I do not think criticism should be directed to the Ministry at all, but rather to this House of Commons which passed the various Acts dealing with pensions. No one in this Debate up to now proved that the Ministry has done anything against the law. Therefore, if we are dissatisfied with the results obtained up to now, the blame rests as much upon us as Members of this House as upon anyone else. It is perfectly useless for us to seek to divest ourselves of our responsibility by pitching into the Ministry.
It is said that the system is wrong. Let me point out in the first place that the system has not even been in universal application up to now. It has not been possible to cover the whole of England, Scotland and Wales with these new area committees. It is grossly unfair to condemn a system before it has been put into full working order. It is said that the Minister should not be bound by the letter of the law, but should exercise his own discretion. Supposing one were to go into a law court, and say to the judge, "You must not be bound by the law, but use your own discretion," the judge would at once reply, "If you are going to do it, you will have no law at all, and decisions will be given, not upon legal points, but according to the whim and fancy of the judge who hears the case." That is not the way in which we ought to deal with this matter. If the law is wrong, let us alter it. Do not let us seek to place the responsibility for ma own misdoings, if misdoings there are, on the Ministry. I do not say that all the cases brought before us in our various divisions are genuine. There are and there always will be, as long as the world continues, a small proportion who are not justified in the demands which they make. I am afraid that Members have quoted extreme cases, and that many of these cases, if closely inquired
into, would be found not to be quite as genuine as they appear on the surface.
It takes a certain amount of courage to tell people who come to one with complaints, "This will not do." I myself on several occasions have listened patiently to what a man has had to say, and I have proved to myself that he is a thorough scoundrel, and I have threatened to kick him out if he did not go. I think some hon. Members should take exactly the same line and ask the man who makes the complaint to come and see them. That is what I do in every single case where I am dissatisfied. My division covers 188 parishes, and is, I think, the second biggest in the British Isles. But if the man cannot come to me I take a motor car and go to see him. I must confess that about 99 per cent. of the cases are really cases which need to be inquired into, but when you have pointed out what the law is, not what the whim or fancy of anyone else is, or what they imagine the law should be, out of the 99 per cent. the great majority are reasonable people who recognise that their case cannot be helped. You will get a small percentage of people who will try every dodge under the sun to see whether they cannot, as they call it, "best the Government." Remember this, that in a regiment the men are not all angels; at any rate, not all good angels. There is a percentage not as good as they might be. The men who try to make application for that to which they are not entitled are the men who make all the fuss, who kick up the rows and write to the newspapers, and those who are really honest, I have found as a rule, have very little complaint to make.
On occasions on which I have disagreed with the Ministry, I have, as I said before, either visited the offices or had further communication with them, and while there always must be a certain number of border-line cases, where it is hard to say whether the Ministry ought to come down on the one side or the other, in the majority of the eases the Ministry gave the applicant the benefit of the doubt. I think it is only fair that anyone who has had to deal with such an enormous number of cases as I have should give his experience. It may require a certain amount of courage to stand up for a Department which has been pitched into right and left in the
course of this Debate, but let me say, in conclusion, as I said at the start, that I have found the Ministry carry out its duties with sympathy and promptitude, and an earnest desire to do the best possible for the men. If there is anything wrong, it is not with the Ministry, but with the House of Commons. The House passed the Pension Acts, which hon. Members now say are not operating as they should. Why should not those hon. Members bring in an amending Act, and let us have in front of us what they think should be done? Ministers are human and make mistakes. We in this House recognised that, and set up an absolutely independent tribunal over which the Ministry has no control whatever. If that tribunal gives a decision against the Ministry, the Ministry has to carry out that decision. I do not know any fairer system than that. If it is within the competence and wisdom of the House to set up a better system, it is up to those who make these complaints to show what they can propose which is better than what is being done at the present time.

Mr. C. WHITE: Surely if a law is not working satisfactorily, it is one of the functions of this House to point out where it is not working satisfactorily, with a view to having it remedied. When the hon. Member who has just sat down says that we should bring in an amending Act, he knows there is no possible chance of our doing anything of the kind. My complaint is not so much against the law as against the administration of the Acts which are now the law of the land. Although the hon. Member may have 188 parishes in his Division, I have got something like 350 square miles, I have no motor car, and I devote every hour of my Saturday and Sunday to interviewing people, especially pensioners, who are, as I consider, being subjected to injustice. I say without hesitation that one of the greatest calamities caused by the Act now in operation is the abolition of the local pensions committees. It may be I shall not have a great deal of support in this view, and the hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Pensions Ministry said this was a. saving of £300,000 a year. I say that saving is largely at the expense of the pensioners.
I do not mind what is said on the other side of the House as to theory. I know thousands of practical instances in
Derbyshire and other parts of the country, and no Member of this House has worried the Pensions Ministry more than I have with regard to these particular matters. We had a remarkable speech from the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson) who is a theorist, an idealist, and a visionary, and who knows nothing of the practical difficulties that have to be met among pensioners and ex-service men. I hope his speech will be well circulated in his constituency. It is not the first time he has had something to say against ex-service men in this House. It is a fact that in many districts pensioners live many miles from pensions committees or pensions offices, and I know cases where they live from 12 to 20 miles distant from either. Consequently, the human touch is destroyed. How are these people to get into touch with the Ministry except by means of somebody who is sent down from the Ministry or from the area committee to inquire into the circumstances of the particular case. The pensions committees that have been abolished were very much better able to deal with these cases, and were very much better judges, because they had these men and women under constant supervision. This question is not confined by any means to any one party in the House. This question is too serious to make the ex-service man or woman who is a pensioner a stalking horse. On the whole, if you can get to the Minister of Pensions you get sympathetic consideration, but there are so many cases that do not come to him at all, that are decided—

It being a Quarter past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction, of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

BOLTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

As amended, considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Periodical revision, of Tramway fares and charges.)

If at any time after three years from the passing of this Act or (as respects any district outside the borough with respect to which an Order has been made in pursuance
of this Section) after three years from the date of such Order it is represented in writing to the Minister of Transport (a) by the local authority of any district outside the borough in which any part of the corporation tramways is situate or (b) by the corporation that under the circumstances then existing all or ally of the fares or other charges demanded and taken, should (i) in the case of a representation by any such local authority as aforesaid be revised as respects so much of the corporation tramways as is situate within the district of that authority and (ii) in the case of a representation by the corporation be revised as respects all or any part of the corporation tramways with respect to which an Order has been made in pursuance of this Section, the Minister of Transport may (if he thinks fit) direct an inquiry by a referee to be appointed by him in accordance with the provisions of "the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919," and if the referee reports that it has been proved to his satisfaction that or any of the fares or charges should be revised, the Minister may, subject to the maximum fares and charges for the time being authorised by order in writing, alter, modify, reduce or increase all or any of the fares or charges to be taken in respect of any such portion of the corporation tramways as aforesaid, and thenceforth such Order shall be observed until the same is revoked or modified by an Order of the Minister of Transport made in pursuance of this Section. Provided that such fares and charges shall not by any such Order be reduced below the maximum fares and charges authorised immediately before the passing of this Act.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 54.—(Periodical revision of tramway fares and charges.)

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

CLAUSE 140.—(Penalty on original vendor of unsound food.)

(1) Where it is shown that any animal or article liable to be seized under Sections 116 to 118 of the "Public Health Act, 1875," and Section 28 of "the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890," and found in the possession of any person was sold to him by another person for the food of man (the proof that the same was not sold for the food of man resting with the party charged), and when so sold was in such a condition as to be liable to be so seized and to be condemned under Section 117 of the "Public Health Act, 1875," the person who so sold the same shall be punishable as mentioned in the last-mentioned Section unless he proves that at the time he sold the said animal or article he did not know and had no reason to believe that the said animal or article was in such condition.

(2) Where any article of food has been condemned by a Justice under Section 117
of the "Public Health Act, 1875," as amended by Section 28 of "the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890," the person to whom the same belongs or did belong at the time of deposit of such article for the purpose of sale or of preparation for sale as well as the persons in those Sections mentioned shall also be punishable as mentioned in the said Section 117 unless he prove that at the time of such deposit he did not know and had no reason to believe that the said article was in such a condition as to be liable to be so condemned.

(3) Before any animal or article liable to be condemned under Section 117 of the "Public Health Act, 1875," as amended by Section 28 of the "Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890," and this Section is dealt with by a justice, the medical officer or the sanitary inspector shall inform the person in whose custody or possession the same was at the time when it was inspected by the medical officer or sanitary inspector of the intention of such medical officer or sanitary inspector to have the same dealt with by a justice, and any person who may be liable in respect of such animal or article to a prosecution under the aforesaid provisions shall be entitled to attend the proceedings before the justice and to be heard with his witnesses upon the application for the condemnation of any such animal or article.

(4) The Corporation shall forthwith after the passing of this Act give notice of the effect of the provisions of this Section by advertisement in the principal local newspapers circulating in the borough.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
The Clause gives extended powers to deal, as the corporation say, with matters affecting public health, and the ground of my opposition to the Clause is, firstly, that no such powers are necessary for the protection of the public health, and, secondly, that if any Member of the House thought they were so necessary, such powers ought to be given by a general Act and not by a Clause inserted in an omnibus Bill giving powers to a particular corporation. The question arises in this way. By the general law of the land, in the Public Health Act, 1875, Sections 116 to 119, if anybody exposes for sale any article of food, the medical officer of health or the sanitary inspector in the particular locality can inspect that article, or can get a search warrant, if necessary, to inspect it, and if it be found to be unwholesome, he can seize it; he can then take it before a magistrate and have it condemned and destroyed, and the person who so exposes or prepares it for sale can be fined up
to an amount of £20 for each article so exposed, and, in addition, can be sent to prison for some considerable period. The first point that I wish to make is that such a power is amply sufficient for the protection of the public health in the town of Bolton, or in any town, because it is apparent that if you take meat, for instance, it is sold only in a butcher's shop, and if a man be fined or imprisoned for selling bad meat, his business is ruined, and the offence does not occur again. For this reason the power of dealing with him is ample. Under Section 116 of the Public Health Act, 1875, that power applies Lo any animal, carcase, meat, poultry, game, fish, fruit, and vegetable, and by a further Section of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890, referred to in the Clause which I am now seeking to omit, that Section 116 of the Act of 1875 was extended to every article of food. Therefore, in every part of the country the sanitary officer has this power of condemning the food, having it destroyed, and having the man who is attempting to sell it, or even preparing it for sale, fined and imprisoned.
The Corporation of Bolton have got passed by a Private Bill Committee in this particular case a power which goes very much beyond that. It is shortly to this effect, that where a shopkeeper is so summoned and dealt with, if he says, "I bought this article or this animal from somebody else, say Mr. 'A,'" wherever he lives, however far away, and whatever length of time before, the sanitary inspector can issue a summons against "A" and bring him to Bolton, put him in the Bolton Police Court, and "A" is to be found guilty unless he proves that when he sold the animal or the article it was, so far as he knew, sound. I submit to the House that legislation of this sort is putting the producers of food throughout the country into an absolutely unnecessary position and casting a slur and a stigma upon them that they ought not to be put under. There is no need for it, from the public health point of view, and whatever steps are taken, the onus ought to be on the local authority which prosecutes them, and they ought to be prosecuted in the locality where the sale took place instead of being brought all this distance.
Secondly, even if anybody thought that such a power was necessary, I venture to say that it ought to be given only by a general Act of Parliament, making it the law all over the country, in the same way as the Public Health Act provides for the retailer who sells food in his shop or exposes it for sale. It never ought to be given to any particular corporation and slipped into an omnibus Bill dealing with all sorts of other powers that they are seeking. It ought to receive the fullest consideration by the House, and it ought to be a measure brought in by the Government, so that its hearings might be considered in all directions, and it ought to be applied to every part of the community and to every part of the country. That that is the general view is abundantly clear from the practice that has always been adopted. In no case has such a Clause as this ever been inserted in a private Act, except in three cases, and in those three there were special circumstances. They are the cases of Birmingham, Salford, and Liverpool, where it was held that those places were the centres of the meat distributing trade of the country, and it was considered desirable in the Private Bills of those Corporations that these extensive powers should be granted. I have here a memorandum from the Home Office, where they state that this Clause was allowed to Liverpool in 1913, to Birmingham in 1914, and to Salford in 1920, in view of special local circumstances, namely, that these places are centres of the meat trade. Similar proposals, however, have been frequently disallowed. In the case of the Halifax, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Northampton, Morley, Wimbledon, Lincoln. Dewsbury and Grimsby Bills, the attempt was made in each case to insert a Clause similar in character to this one, and in each case it was turned down by the Committee. Further, in the cases of the Corporation Bills of St. Helens, Sheffield, Chesterfield, Lowestoft in 1920, and one by Batley last year, the promoters after going before the Committee, found that the feeling was so hostile to it, that they withdrew it in each of these cases.
Therefore the matter rests in this way, that unless there have been special circumstances, as in the cases of the three towns I have mentioned, the Bills in at least 12 or 15 others, where there are no special circumstances, have been either
withdrawn or rejected. On behalf of the producers of food, whether it be of meat, game, fruit or any article of food, I say it is an unwarrantable position to put them in, unless the House decide by a general Bill that it shall be made applicable to the producers of food all over the country. Look at the effect of giving it to one corporation. If there be any necessity for it—and I say there is not, because the powers are amply sufficient—surely the only effect of giving it to one corporation would be to drive the disposal of unsound food into neighbouring boroughs where this power has been refused. I regret most strongly this new departure in English law being extended, under which a man is to be charged on the basis of being guilty unless he proves his innocence. It has been suggested that there was a special circumstance in the case of Bolton, inasmuch as people were dumping bad animals in Bolton. No such ease was proved, and no such case could he proved. The Medical Officer of Health admitted that the people were taking bad meat in the adjacent towns, but no ease here could be proved or ever was proved.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would like to put very shortly, in my own words, what is the effect of the Clause. Certain Sections of the Public Health Acts, very rightly and properly, make it an offence for a man to offer for sale, or expose for sale, food which is not fit for human consumption. He can be punished, and the unsuitable food destroyed. That is the law of the land, and it is the law which is enforceable through the administration of the local authority. The effect of this Clause, if passed, would be that the local authority of Bolton would obtain a very big extension of the law of the land; in other words, Bolton would be altering the law, not merely of the district of Bolton Corporation, but the law of the land of this country. My second point is that the proposed extension of the law by this Clause is entirely unnecessary for the purpose for which this portion of the Bill was promoted, namely, the protection of public health. That is sufficiently protected by being able to seize improper food which is exposed for sale, and by punishing the person who exposes it. I suggest that those two points alone should be fatal objections to this Clause, unless
there be some very special reason shown why this Clause should be passed, notwithstanding those objections.
I will refer in a very few words to an objection to which my hon. and learned Friend has drawn attention. This Clause seeks to make liable to the same punishment as the man who exposes unfit food for sale, the man who sold it to him, unless he can prove his innocence. Unless there be some special reason for it, that surely is contrary to our sense of justice? The whole tradition of English law and English people is that a man is innocent until he is proved to be guilty, and one great and, to my mind, fatal objection to this Clause is that it makes the original vendor guilty as a result of the offence of the immediate vendor, unless the original vendor can prove his innocence. If you want to go for the original vendor at all, go for him in a proper way, and convict him if you can prove the offence against him. But do not, because some other man has been found guilty, say that he is to be found guilty unless he can prove his innocence.
I come to what, I imagine, will be the answer which will be made to these objections. I think there are two. We shall be told that there are special reasons in the case of Bolton. The only special reasons in the case of Bolton, of which I have been unable to hear, after making considerable inquiries, are those which have been mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend, that it was said that for some reason or other—I do not know whether it was because of the supposed gullibility or dishonesty, or whatever it was, of the Bolton butchers or traders—but for some reason or other, anyone who had bad meat to sell, tried to sell it to the Bolton dealers. It hardly lies in the mouths of the promoters of this Bill to put that up as a special circumstance. If that was the only special circumstances for which they wanted this Clause, all they had to do was to make this extension apply to that part of the Public Health Act of 1875 which applies to meat. That particular argument is no justification whatever for extension to the later Act of, I think, 1890, which extends the offence to all kinds of food.
One word on this extension to other kinds of food, because it is a little bit illustrative of the difficulties there will
be in the way of working this Clause. The later Act extends this offence of exposing for sale food unfit for human consumption beyond meat to other kinds of food, including, for instance, fruit. What does a fruiterer do in a big shop? He buys his fruit from no end of different producers. He does not keep the produce of one farm or one fruit-grower apart from that of another. He lumps it together. Therefore, if part of his stock is found to be unfit for human food, how are you going to trace the original vendor of that particular part which happens to be unfit for food? You are going at least to cast a slur upon, and the opportunity for prosecution against a dozen, and it may be as many as 50 producers of fruit, just because the fruit supplied by one of these 50 was unsound. Another objection, which I anticipate will be raised to our Motion to strike out this Clause, is that this action should have been taken at an earlier stage of this Bill. The answer to that argument is the fact that I, who have no interest in Bolton, have a considerable interest in opposing this Clause on general grounds. So long as the Bill remained purely concerned with Bolton affairs it might be all right. But our procedure here in regard to Private Bills very properly requires that at certain stages they shall come, not before any special Committee, but before the Whole House. When the Bill comes to the knowledge of an ordinary Member like myself, who is not interested in Bolton, but finds that a farmer or fruit grower, or half-a-dozen other people in his constituency in Hertfordshire may suddenly become criminals under the law of this land by virtue of a Private Bill of the Bolton Corporation, then that is an absolute justification for interference, and I hope it will persuade the House absolutely to refuse to allow this Clause to pass.
For reasons which I have already stated, I do not think it is advisable to extend this Clause of the Public Health Act. Admitting, however, for the purposes of argument, that it is advisable to go back to the earlier vendors of the diseased or bad food, the proceedings should, surely, be carried out fairly over the whole country and by public Statute! The matter should not be carried out by Private Bill of this character, promoted by a corporation of—I will admit—a very important town in the
North. Others in Hertfordshire or Sussex may find themselves offenders under the Bill, of which they are not necessarily supposed to know anything, promoted by a local authority miles away from where they are carrying on their business, and miles away from any place that they themselves have anything to do with. I have some considerable doubt—perhaps I ought not to express an opinion on this point—as to whether this Clause ought ever to have been allowed as being within the scope and Preamble of the Bill. It is to protect the health of Bolton. But Bolton can perfectly well protect its own health by seeing that no food exposed for sale in its own district is unwholesome, and by seeing that those are punished who expose such unfit food.
What business is it of Bolton to go outside its own district? What need has Bolton for the protection of its health to go outside its own district? Therefore, I suggest that, however laudable any alteration in the general law of this country might be, that for this reason again it is quite wrong for it to be done at the instance of Bolton in such a way as to make criminal those people in Hertfordshire or Sussex who happen to be the vendors of meat to Bolton, and who are not criminal vendors in regard to meat sold to Brighton or York. The whole thing is ridiculous and absurd. If, therefore, there is no reason for this Clause—and I hope I have shown that—if I have shown that it offends against the ordinary Englishman's sense of justice by assuming that a man is guilty until he can prove his innocence, I suggest to the House that this Clause ought never to have been proposed. I suggest that if the promoters of this Bill will not immediately withdraw it this House will show its independence of Bolton, and its interest in the rest of the country; and that it should show its desire to protect is own right to make laws for this country generally in preference to allowing Bolton to do so.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: One would conclude, listening to the speeches on the Motion for rejection, that we were dealing with some matter where some private conspiracy was on foot to interfere with the liberty of the subject. We are dealing with a matter promoted by one of the largest towns in Lancashire, supported by the Corporation, endorsed by the con-
stituents, and having been further considered by the House of Lords and unanimously approved, referred to a Committee of this House, and again approved. What we are asked to do is not only to ignore the wishes and requirements of Bolton, not only to say we are better judges of your requirements and much better guardians of your health, we are more concerned with your protection than you are yourself, but, over and above that, if the Motion that is now being moved is carried we are called upon to say that those Members of the House of Lords who considered this matter knew nothing about the subject, we are asked to say that they did a grave injustice, and over and above that, notwithstanding that counsel argued as eloquently as the Mover and Seconder had done against this Clause, the whole thing was thrashed out pro and con by a Committee upstairs, and they came to this decision, and we are asked to assume that, notwithstanding all that evidence and argument, and the case presented, that this House is entitled to throw both the Committee of the House of Lords and the Committee of the House of Commons overboard, and accept the statement made by my hon. Friend.
What shortly are the facts? Will it be disputed that it is not only right, but it is the duty of a public authority to safeguard the health of its people. Will hon. Members on the opposite side of the House say that the Bolton Corporation, when they came, to this House for these powers, were not entitled to say to Parliament, "We, as representatives of the Bolton people, are satisfied that this Clause is necessary in the interests and for the protection of the health and the life of our community." That is precisely what they have said. They say, "Our experience shows that meat, damaged fruit, and other things come into the town of Bolton which are a danger and a menace to the health of the people." They further say, "We have taken action often against the butcher who has sold diseased meat; we have prosecuted him, but when we have prosecuted we have found that the real culprit has been someone else, and we have been unable to get at the real culprit." That, after all, is the essence of the ease. Boiled down, the case is that a butcher in the town of Bolton is selling diseased meat which is admittedly
diseased and poisonous, and may result even in the death of one of the inhabitants of Bolton. The Bolton medical officer of health, in the exercise of his duty, institutes a prosecution, and when the case comes before the Court, the butcher who sold the meat is able to show that he is innocent.

Mr. D. HERBERT: No.

Sir F. BANBURY: That is not so.

Mr. THOMAS: I am stating what actually happened. This butcher pleads that he is innocent, and he proves that this meat or fruit has been sold to him, and he has no knowledge whatever that it is diseased, and then the medical officer of health for Bolton says, "Very well, we want the power to get at the real culprit." That is exactly what this Clause provides.

Mr. HERBERT: I am sure my right hon. Friend does not want to mislead the House on a question of law. May I point out to him that the butcher who exposes meat which is unfit for food cannot get out of a conviction by putting up as a defence the guilt of the man who has sold the meat to him. It is an offence in law for that butcher to have exposed meat unfit for sale, and it is no defence to the charge that it was sold to him when it was in an unfit state.

Mr. THOMAS: It may not have been a right defence or a proper legal defence, but it is a defence that has succeeded.

Mr. HERBERT: Then those justices are not fit to administer the law.

Mr. THOMAS: Surely the interruption of my hon. Friend opposite justifies my case. If the hon. Member admits that the person responsible, whether it is an individual or a dozen people, whether it is a man in Bolton or London, whoever is responsible ought to be prosecuted. That is all the Bolton Corporation are asking for. That is all that this Clause does, and it is all that the. Committee decided that they ought to have the power to do. I put it on other grounds. I do not know where the representatives of Bolton are now.

Mr. FOOT: Bolton wanderers.

Mr. THOMAS: I know that one of the Members for Bolton is very ill and the
other has just resigned his office in the Government. I should like either of the hon. Members representing Bolton to state from the Floor of the House how anyone representing the traders or anyone else in the town of Bolton could object to the town council having power to deal with the real culprit. That, I contend, is the essence of this Clause, and I submit that we ought to have far more evidence than we have heard to-night to convince us of the necessity of, in the first place, rejecting the claim of a corporation like Bolton; secondly, of saying that those Members of the House of Lords who considered this matter were not competent to judge; and thirdly, that having appointed a Committee of this House to go into the matter and to hear the evidence, and after being satisfied as to the merits of the case making a recommendation to us, I put it to the House that we not only ought to endorse their action, but we would be taking upon ourselves a very grave responsibility if we reject what, after all, they are most competent to deal with, having regard to the evidence. Upon all these grounds I submit that the House might not to accept the Motion which has been moved and seconded.

Mr. ATKEY: In the absence of the Chairman of the Local Legislation Committee, I venture to submit to the House a few of the considerations which led the Committee to grant the powers sought by Bolton in respect of this particular Clause which it is now sought to delete, and, in the first place, I would like to correct one or two misapprehensions under which the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley) apparently suffers. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that somehow or other it had slipped into the Bill.

Mr. CAUTLEY: Slipped through the Committee.

Mr. ATKEY: My reply is that it slipped into the Bill so long ago as last December, and has therefore been available for those who take the view of the Mover and Seconder to deal with ever since that date. Then, again, the hon. Gentleman admitted that the Local Legislation Committee had in three cases granted these powers, but he laid emphasis on the fact that the same Committee had refused the powers in many
other cases which had been submitted to them. I venture to suggest to the House that the very fact that the Local Legislation Committee have had this Clause before them on so many occasions, and had in some cases exercised their discretion in favour of it, while in other cases they have rejected it, is the very best indication that before they granted the powers sought by Bolton they considered the case presented to them by Bolton most carefully. I feel that the Committee and this House are entitled to resent the intrusion upon their time of a Motion of this nature. My hon. Friend who seconded the Motion (Mr. Dennis Herbert) anticipated this point, which I am raising most strongly, and he made the very ingenious suggestion, by way of counter-attack, that this was the first time that his attention had been drawn to the Clause. But this Bill has not been brought mote particularly to his attention in the course of the last week or two. It has been in existence since last December.

Mr. D. HERBERT: Surely the fact that it has been brought to my attention is proved by my action in seconding the Motion.

Mr. ATKEY: The Bill was just as much brought to the attention of my hon. Friend in January this year as it has been now, and his subtle suggestion that this Bill comes before the House like a Government Measure and has therefore attracted his attention is a little too thin, if I may say so respectfully, even for him. I emphatically protest that after a Bill of this character has been considered by the House of Lords and its Committee and by the House of Commons and its Committee, and after this Clause has been subjected to special consideration and debate, my hon Friend should now seek on the Floor of this House to get a recommittal of the Bill and to try and prejudice the decision of the House in favour of the rejection of this Clause without the House having an opportunity which was given to the two Committees of hearing evidence in favour of the Clause, of cross-examining the witnesses, and of coining to a very definite conclusion on the matter. 'The Mover of the Amendment has suggested it is a matter which affects public health. I agree. But in this particular Bill it is the public health of Bolton only which is affected.
9.0 P.M.
I join issue with my hon. Friend in the suggestion that matters of this kind, which are the peculiar and particular functions of the Local Legislation Committee, should be rejected by this House in favour of a proposal to make them the subject of the general law. It would be fatal to the usefulness and destroy the scope and purpose of the Local Legislation Committee if that were agreed to. Bills from corporations submit for our consideration the powers they require because of the special circumstances of their case. Is it to he supposed that the peculiar and special circumstances of each city and borough in this country shall he made the subject of general legislation? The law at the present moment is often rendered ridiculous, but if in general legislation we try to reflect the idiosyncrasies of every part of the United Kingdom, well, one cannot contemplate what would be the result. I do not propose to turn this Sitting of the House into a meeting of the Local Legislation Committee, nor do I desire to ask the House to consider the evidence in extenso which the Committee had before it, hut there is one passage from the evidence I would like to read, more especially in view of the fact that my hon. Friend who moved the rejection of the Clause seemed to think there was no evidence whatever sumitted to the Committee which justified the action we took. The medical officer of health is, of course, the officer in charge of the health of the borough, and if we are not to take his evidence as a guide on the wisdom of granting or refusing a Clause of this kind, I would ask, what other evidence are we to take? This question, which was put to the medical officer, will indicate to the House the thoughts that were running through the mind of the Committee. The question was:
Will you explain to the Committee the reasons which, in your judgment, in the interests of the health of the borough, make it desirable that you should have these powers?
I commend the answer to the careful consideration of the House. It was as follows:
The cases for which we want these powers are cases where the people make it their trade to endeavour to smuggle into Bolton diseased animals knowing them to be diseased—to smuggle them into the private slaughter-houses and so escape inspection,
and to put the carcases of these beasts on the market as sound meat. We do all we can, but it is quite impossible to detect all these cases. These men—I know the names of two or three—make it a regular business, and they run very slight risk of lass. I understand from those acquainted with the trade that if the beasts are detected they only lose about 30s., but if they succeed in passing the beasts as sound and in getting the carcases put on the market as sound meat then they make a very considerable profit. It is absolutely essential to get at these men who make it their business to go round surrounding districts to find and buy diseased beasts and to try and introduce them into Bolton and other towns.
There is a plain statement of fact. I quote it because I think it will immediately convert my hon. Friend who seconded the rejection of the Clause, and who apparently is alarmed in respect of the farmers whom he represents so ably in this House. It is not an attempt to legislate for the North, the South, the East and the West, and although technically—and our lawyer friends are very prone to take a technical point of view—the passing of this Clause might give the Bolton Corporation power to follow a purveyor of diseased meat into distant parts of the country, it will be seen, from the evidence which was submitted to the Committee, and upon which we agreed to this Clause, that the city of Bolton is faced with the fact that this practice has grown up around the district and in the neighbourhood. We were satisfied that Bolton had proved their case, and we gave them the Clause. I should be sorry to think that the same sort of thing prevailed all over the country. So far as the city which I have the honour to represent is concerned, we have no smugglers of diseased meat around us, and we have not wanted a Clause of this character up to the present; but if we proved our case as well as Bolton I am satisfied that the Local Legislation Committee would give us those powers.
I respectfully suggest that it will be a sorry day for the machinery of this House, and for the methods which it has adopted for dealing with local legislation, if, at the last stage in the proceedings, when every opportunity has passed for a considered judgment to be taken on this matter, when it, is too late to have the suggestions and statements of those who seek to destroy this Clause really examined in the light of the facts and submitted to an impartial tribunal—
it will be a sorry day for the legislation of this House if it then permits its machinery to be reversed and the decision of its Committee to be ignored, on the representations of one or two hon. Members who, after a lengthy sleep during all the earlier stages when this Bill was open to their inspection, now come down to the House and ask for a reversal of the Committee's decision. Had they taken their case in proper and due season to the Local Legislation Committee or to the Committee of the other House, those Committees would have welcomed any evidence which they chose to submit to them. I do say that, when a tribunal of that character, composed as it is of all shades of opinion in this House, has heard and considered evidence peculiar to the city whose Bill we are considering, and has come to the conclusion that the powers sought are reasonable and ought to be granted, the House should hesitate a long time before, in the circumstances with which we are faced to-night, they should reverse that decision and delete the Clause.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. James Hope): I have some advice to give to the House on this Bill, but it only amounts to this, that they should come to a speedy decision upon it. This particular Clause is only one Clause out of 232, and I venture to suggest that, with matters of great national interest before the House, we should not spend too much time upon it. The Clause is one that has been proposed in a number of Corporation Bills. In three cases it has been accepted; in a somewhat greater number it has been rejected. The question for the House to-night is whether they will accept the finding of the majority of the Committee—I think they were not unanimous—that the circumstances of Bolton warrant this special Clause being put in. If they do that, they will vote for the Clause. If, on the other hand, they think that a question of principle is involved, and that no extension should be given to that principle by a private Act, they will vote against the Clause. Whether, however, they vote against it or whether they do not, I trust that, in view of the arguments that have been adduced on both sides, the House is now ready to come to a decision.

Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: The hon. Member for Central Nottingham
(Mr. Atkey) says that, because the Committee upstairs have passed a certain Clause, that Clause is to be accepted, and this House is not in any kind of way to overrule the decision of the Committee. If that be so I would ask, what is the use of this House? Have they surrendered their functions to four gentlemen sitting upstairs, who, as we now know from the statement of the Chairman of Ways and Means, were not unanimous? That is what the hon. Member asks us to do. A more absurd doctrine was never put before this House.

Mr. ATKEY: May I point out that the reason which prompted me to make that statement was this, that the opposition could have been heard before that Committee? Had they been heard and failed, I should have agreed that it would have been quite proper to pursue their objection on the Floor of the House. But they failed of their opportunity, and I do not think they have now any right to ask the House to reverse the Committee's decision.

Sir F. BANBURY: I really do not know what the hon. Member means by saying that they have failed of their opportunity. My duty, and the duty of all Members of this House, is to sit in this House and express our opinions. We are not obliged to go upstairs and wait outside a Committee Room in order to be able to give our opinions there. This is the place where we should give our opinions.

Mr. ATKEY: Not on Private Bills.

Sir F. BANBURY: Certainly, on Private Bills. They are the most necessary Bills on which we should give our opinion, because Corporations in these matters think they are a sort of God Almighty and can do anything they like, but all their proposals, or the majority of them, are bad and arbitrary. Therefore, this is the place where decisions of that sort ought to be given. Look at the evidence which, as the hon. Gentleman says, was placed before the Committee. A medical officer comes and says that there are certain people round, about Bolton who do wicked things, and, because there are certain people round about Bolton who do wicked things, there is to he an alteration in the law of the land which will allow any official of a Corporation to prosecute, say, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East
Grinstead (Mr. Cautley), because, per-adventure, some butcher in Bolton has bought from my hon. and learned Friend, three or four weeks ago, a beast. The butcher in Bolton, perhaps, has not kept it in a proper way, it becomes ill, and tuberculosis set in. Then the butcher says, "I will see if I cannot sell it in Bolton." But he is a Bolton man, and probably a friend of the Corporation, so they will not prosecute him, but they will prosecute my hon. and learned Friend who has nothing whatever to do with it, and who is not a friend of the Bolton Corporation. A more absurd contention was never put forward. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) says that the man who does this ought to be prosecuted, and that it is necessary that the people of Bolton should not be poisoned. I agree; and who is the culprit? It is the man who puts in his shop an article which he knows to be bad, and then tries to get out of it by saying that someone else sold it to him. I am not dealing for the moment with the legal point, but it is a very important point that, in English law, no man is supposed to be guilty until he is proved to be so. This Bill, however, says he is guilty unless he has proved his innocence, which is a totally different thing. The hon. Member for Central Nottingham asks why was not something done in January? First of all, this House was not sitting in January; and, secondly, does he suggest that, on the Second Reading of a private Bill of 230 Clauses or more, we should move the rejection of the Bill because we disagree with one Clause? Surely, our proper course would be to allow that Bill to go upstairs, and, if we disagree with the finding of the Committee, to endeavour to put that right when the Bill comes down for consideration in this House. The hon. Gentleman asks, "What were they doing? Were they asleep?" I do not wish to claim for myself any particularly prominent position in this House, but I believe that the majority of this House, and, indeed, the majority of Members present, will say that I am not more asleep than the ordinary Member. I had not the remotest idea that there was this Clause in the Bill or that the same Clause had been given to three other corporations. Let me read the Title of the Bill:
An Act to empower the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the County Borough of
Bolton to construct additional waterworks and tramways and to run services of omnibuses, to execute street improvements, to make further provision in regard to their water, tramway, electricity, and market undertakings, to make further provision for the improvement of the health and good government of the Borough and for other purposes.
The ordinary Member of Parliament naturally does not go through the whole list, but he reads the Title. How on earth is he to suppose that there is a Clause in the Bill which lets off the guilty shopkeeper in Bolton and convicts my hon. and learned Friend? I trust the House will show the just indignation which it ought to feel against an attempt to introduce by private legislation that which, however good it is, ought to be in a general Act, when everyone in the House knows what is going on. The rejection of the Clause, if it is necessary, will not prevent the Government from bringing in a Bill to put the Clause into general effect, but it will prevent the attempt which is being made by corporations to smuggle into private Bills of this sort Clauses which deal with the general law of the land.

Mr. CAPE: I would have acceded to the request of the Chairman of Ways and Means if it had not been for the intervention of the right. hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), who, I think, has given the whole case away of those who are opposing the Bill. He said it was a Bill with 240 Clauses and he quoted the Preamble and asked, how did we expect a. Member of the House to know all that was in the Bill? The fact that an hon. Member does not know all that is in a Bill does not justify him in opposing it after all the investigation it has gone through by the Committee of the House of Lords and the Local Legislation Committee. The Local Legislation Committee has the highest respect and regard for the functions of the House and my hon. Friend has not raised any question about the right of the House to review the decision of the Committee. What he says is that the fact that this Committee and the Committee of the House of Lords having heard all the legal arguments for and against this Clause, and given serious and due consideration to them, is evidence that they were competent to come to a deci-
sion of that kind. Again, the right hon. Baronet complained that there were only four Members on the Committee. I think, if he will look at the records, be will find that there were more than four Members present. It would be well that be should acquaint himself with these things and find out whether he is correct or incorrect in his statements. I am informed that there were ten members of the Committee present.

Sir F. BANBURY: I thought it went before an ordinary Private Bill Committee. I now understand that there were seven members of this Committee present and that four were for the Clause and three against.

Mr. CAPE: I cannot say what were the numbers of the Division, but the fact remains that a Committee much larger than four considered and decided upon the Bill. Before a private Bill can come before the, Local Legislation Committee there are certain stages to go through in the town from which it is promoted. It has to go before a meeting of the town council and then it has to go before a specially called meeting of the burgesses of the town, and is therefore subject to opposition before it can be presented. After it has gone through those processes, any person resident in the town has a right to petition this committee and to be heard. On this occasion there was no opposition to the Clause of that kind and it would be most interesting to the members of the Local Legislation Committee if we could only get to know the real motives which prompted the Mover and Seconder of the Motion for the rejection of the Clause. They are not subject to its ramifications because neither of them lives in Bolton. [Interruption.] If you do anything wrong, you ought to be prosecuted. We gave this Clause in this Bill due consideration. We rejected a similar Clause in other Bills when the evidence was not strong enough to warrant us in coming to a decision in its favour. In other instances, as in this, we were satisfied that sufficient evidence had been produced to warrant us in coming to the, decision we arrived at.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 74 Noes, 80.

Division No. 271.]
AYES.
[9.25 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Hodgde, Rt. Hon. John
Sexton, James


Banton, George
Hogge, James Myles
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Barker, Major Robert H.
Houfton, John plowright
Short, Alfred (wednesbury)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Irving, Dan
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)


Barrand, A. R.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stevens, Marshall


Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sugden, W. H.


Betterton, Henry B.
Kennedy, Thomas
Sutton, John Edward


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kenyon, Barnet
Swan, J. E.


Bramsdon, sir Thomas
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Taylor, J.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lawson, John James
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thomas, Brig.-Gen, Sir O. (Anglesey)


Cowan, D. M, (Scottish Universities)
Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Malone, Major P. B (Tottenham, S.)
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mason, Robert
Waterson, A. E.


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Morris, Richard
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Foot, Isaac
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Forrest, Walter
Myers, Thomas
Wignall, James


Frece, Sir Walter de
Neal, Arthur
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Gee, Captain Robert
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough, E.)


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
O'Grady, Captain James
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, Sir Albert L. (Blackpool)



Gritten, W. G. Howard
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hamsworth)
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Mr. Atkey and Mr. Cape.


Halls, Walter
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler





NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Perkins, Walter Frank


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Perring, William George


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Hallwood, Augustine
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Renwick, Sir George


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Hamilton, Sir George C.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Barnston, Major Harry
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Hills, Major John Waller
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)


Birchall, J. Dearman
Hopkins, John W. W.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dswortn, Putney)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Jameson, John Gordon
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Brittain, Sir Harry
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Bruton, Sir James
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Lort-Williams, J.
Whitla, Sir William


Cautley, Henry Strother
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Macquisten, F. A.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Col. L. O. (R'ding)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Windsor, Viscount


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Wise, Frederick


Dawson, Sir Philip
Newman, sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, c.)


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Worsfold, T. Cato


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Worthington Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Fell, Sir Arthur
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John



Forestier-Walker, L.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Parker, James
Mr. Thomas Davies and Mr.


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Dennis Herbert.

Ordered, "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment to Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

PENSIONS ADMINISTRATION.

Mr. C. WHITE: At. 8.15 p.m. I was saying that on the whole, if one could get to the Minister of Pensions, one could always obtain personal sympathetic consideration from him. I greatly fear that the Minister is not acquainted with all that goes on and—I say it with all respect—that he is not master in his own house. He gives full power to heads of Departments and regional directors to place their own construction upon Regulations. They appear to be responsible to no one. If that is so, they have a great deal to answer for, because many things happen which will not stand the light of day.
They also place such a construction on the Regulations that they are seldom exercised in favour of the pension. I will give an instance of what is happening in a pension office with which I am somewhat acquainted. It is provided' in the Royal Warrant of 1919 that a surviving parent can claim a transfer of a pension which they enjoyed before the man or woman died. The Regulation passed by this House, to which we have been referred, provided that a dependency or family pension could not be awarded unless application was made before 1st April, 1922. The other day I took the liberty of reading here a pension instruction which had been sent to one of the pension officers in a constituency in the North Midlands. The Minister of Pensions said he would like to see it, as he was not quite conversant with what had been done. I am going to read what has been said by the regional director, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman on what amended Warrant this Warrant of 1919 has been altered. This is what was said:
I am informed that it is now been decided that upon the death of a parent in receipt of a pension under Article 21 of the Royal Warrant, payment of such pension cannot now be transferred to a surviving parent. Further, it is understood that an amendment to the handbook will shortly he issued.
I suppose that I ought not to have secured possession of that document, but I got it, and I got it in a confidential way. I received an answer the other day from the Ministry that the surviving parents would have a pension granted to them if they could show that they were in need. It has been held by a regional director that the claim by a surviving parent shall be treated as though it were a new application, and it is, therefore, barred under the Amendment, which says that claims for needs and dependency pensions must be made before the let April. Consequently, the claim has not been heard, and it has been ruled out by, the regional director. Why is it not within the province of the Minister of Pensions to see that this thing is not possible to be done?
We have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to-night that 99 per cent. of those temporarily employed under the pensions administration are ex-service men. That is put forward as a reason why
justice is always done. Ninety-nine per cent. of the subordinates in the Pensions Ministry would say that the pensioners are suffering great injustice. If they were asked officially they would not dare to say that the pensioners are suffering injustice, and it is only because some of us, knowing many thousands of ex-service men and pensioners, both men and women, are able to get into touch with some of these people, without undermining their authority or interfering in their business, that we get to know their real opinions. Some time ago I took up the question of medical boards, and the assessors sending back to them asking them to alter decisions at which they had already arrived. Strangely enough, since that question was asked by me in this House this practice has been discontinued in the district where it was always done before. On the Floor of this House one would think that no injustice occurred.
I have heard what has been said about "removal from duty," and the explanation given. I can give an instance which came to my knowledge, and which is now before the Ministry of Pensions, and has been for weeks, although I have had no answer. A man was discharged from hospital, cured, passed A 1 by the medical board, and sent back to general service. The man thought he was well, and he married the day idler coming out of hospital, the medical board having said, "You are quite fit for general service." A few months after marriage he became ill, whether from the same disability or not does not appear to me to enter into the question. If it does enter into the question, then it is clear that the man was not cured of his disability, although he was passed A 1 when he came out of hospital, and therefore was justified in getting married. The man was discharged from military service later, and he was granted a pension arid his wife had a pension. Two years afterwards the pension of the wife was stopped. They had a child, and the pension for the child was stopped, and the man is left with his individual pension.
A good deal has been said in the last few days about the needs pension being increased from 18s. to 20s. How many parents and others are there who are getting the full needs pension of 20s.? You will find a very small percentage. I will give a case of a lady in a village of my constituency who, up to last
month, was receiving a pension of 18s. a week in consequence of her son having been killed in France. Had the son been living he would have been getting £300 a year, and the mother being a widow, he would have been the sole support of the home. She has an invalid son grown up. Her income is only 10s. a week except her pension of 18s. Only a fortnight ago this woman's pension was reduced from 18s. to 10s. a week, with a 2s. bonus to which she is entitled. One would think, when one hears what is said by the Minister of Pensions and the Parliamentary Secretary, that it is impossible for these things to happen. This is not a solitary case. All the Members of this side of the House know of such cases. We on this side of the House may be much better acquainted with these cases than hon. Members on the other side, because we live amongst the people, the majority of whom live in cottage homes. What will happen in this case? This respectable old lady, who had been expecting that her son would come home and maintain her, will have to apply to the guardians for relief. She is the widow of the schoolmaster of the village in which she lives. I am not asking that she should bare preferential treatment because of that, but when I hear that, nobody is suffering, I say that they are suffering greatly in many respects.
Now about the assessment of disability. No regard whatever appears to be had as to what the man was engaged in before he joined the Army. A man might be a watchmaker. I know one man who lives close to me, a shoemaker, whose pension is now being stopped on the ground that his disability has passed away. He has a stiff shoulder, and he has to turn the hoot round to stitch it with one hand because he cannot use the other. Surely some regard should be paid to what a man did before he entered the Army, and as to the percentage of disability which does not allow him to follow the trade which he followed previous to joining the Army. Very much has been said about the consideration given to tuberculous cases. I brought forward a case a few days ago, and I was fairly treated by the Ministry, because they are going to allow a further examination. Here was a man who for 4½, years has been treated for tuberculosis, and has a full pension granted to him. The specialists
of the Pensions Ministry found that during that time he was suffering from tuberculosis, but a new man comes along with a new broom, and he says, "You are not suffering from tuberculosis, and you never have been." I was able to produce certificates from the Ministry's own specialist, to whom they had sent him, to show that during 4½ years he had been suffering from that complaint. These are cases that one does not hear a great deal about in this House except when they are brought forward by some of us who live amongst these people.
With regard to attributability, aggravated in many eases by military service, it is found that the aggravation has passed away. Who is best able to judge? The doctor who examines the man when he leaves military service, and who attributes the disability to military service, or the doctor who examines him 4½ years afterwards? I can quote many cases. A long time ago I quoted a case of a man who was sent into a military hospital suffering from gas poisoning directly attributable to military service. That was stated on the certificate. Then the medical board said that he was suffering from nephritis, 100 per cent.—surely that is the sequel to gas poisoning if I know anything about it, and I have inquired from doctors—and that it was not attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The man died in agony of mind as well as body, fearing that his wife and children would get no pension when he was dead. The pension was refused by the Ministry, and justice was only done because she had a friend in the House of Commons who fought her case here.
Any applicant who can get through the instructions given to the investigation officers, in addition to the forms which he himself has to fill up, is a very lucky individual. I have never seen such an inquisitorial examination. I have had cases in which local pensions committees and investigators have proposed the reduction and, in some cases, the abolition of a pension, and the Minister himself, in cases which I can mention if I am challenged, has reversed the decision of these local committees such as exist at present—because there are very few of them—and of the investigation officers, because somebody in the House of Commons has been able to bring the full
circumstances of the case before him. Otherwise, the decision would not have been interfered with. Consciously or unconsciously, there is no doubt that some of those responsible for the administration of pensions are not on the side of the pensioner.
As to the Pensions Appeal Tribunals, I agree that there must be finality somewhere. Many cases are lost through the inability of the pensioners or ex-service men to employ counsel to put their case before the tribunal. It is all very well to say that the tribunal always sees that justice is done. I know that in eases in the Law Courts I have suffered because I have had expensive counsel against me, and before the tribunals a case is often prejudiced because it is not put fully and fairly, as it would be if counsel were employed. I submit that the pensioner should have such expense allowed him or her as would enable him or her to be represented by counsel at the appeal. This is logical, inasmuch as so much solicitude is expressed for the pensioner when he goes before the tribunal. Surely it is not asking so much, in view of that phase, that expenses should be allowed so that the applicant may be represented by counsel.
I would further suggest that power should not be given to officials to interpret and to act on their own initiative, as they do at present and as they have done in that particular case which I have mentioned here which came to my notice not long ago; that assessors should not use their influence with medical boards as they were doing not long ago but which has since ceased; that medical boards, having once arrived at a decision as to percentage of disability, that decision should be accepted without any attempt to curtail it; and that the seven years' limit should be abolished altogether. That is one of the most unjust provisions. I understand that it is going to be altered. There should be no time limit whatever, and the fact that the man's death was attributable to or aggravated by military service should be sufficient. I know that these suggestions are received with derision by an idealist opposite, who knows nothing about the practical part of the matter, but the men who fought our battles and the women who are left behind should have justice done to them. The
pensioners may be safeguarded in theory, but to my knowledge—and I live largely among them—this is not corking out in practice, and injustice is being perpetrated in the administration of our pensions.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Pollock): I rise for a limited purpose—to answer some questions that have been put by the right hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson). It does not lie within my province to answer any of the questions put by the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. C. White), but I will say this in answer to him, not speaking at all as a Member of the Government but merely as a Member of this House, that I cannot accept his claim to have in any way either greater sympathy with, or a greater right to represent these men, than any other Member of this House.

Mr. WHITE: I did not say that.

Sir E. POLLOCK: In my view there can be no claim on the part of any Member to be before or after any other in his sympathy for the ex-service man, and in his desire to see justice done, nor do I believe that any Member is entitled to say that he has got any greater experience or greater knowledge. We have all investigated personally a great number of these cases. We receive just as many communications as any Member of this House, and I think that for one Member to arrogate to himself the claim to speak with peculiar knowledge, peculiar experience and deeper sympathy than other Members is a claim which cannot be allowed and which ought to be protested against by every Member. Now I turn to the interesting speech of the right hon. Member for West Fife, which was addressed to me in forceful language, some might almost mistake it for menacing language, but I know him too well and he knows me too cell to think that. I could possibly misunderstand either the tone or the purpose with which his request was put to me, and he knows that the subject on which he touched is one which has had my sympathetic consideration for a very considerable period, and I have spent a great deal of time not only with him, but also with the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) and the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. T. Griffiths) to see whether or not we could come to a solution of what every Member must regard as a very difficult problem.
There was one observation by the hon. Member for West Derbyshire with which I am in close agreement. He said that there must be finality somewhere. Taking the system of pensions award, first of all there is an arrangement under the Ministry of Pensions itself for an appeal to another Board associated with the Ministry of Pensions. After that there is a third appeal before the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. The result in every case is that before finality is reached, whether the ex-service man is successful or not, he has the opportunity of laying his case before three several and successive tribunals. Lastly I would remind the House that these Pension Appeal Tribunals were set up to meet the desire of the ex-service man. I will also remind the House that those tribunals consist of three persons, one of whom is a lawyer, one a medical man and the third is an ex-service man if it is the claim of an ex-service man which is brought before them. The ex-service man is directly represented upon the tribunal. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Mr. WATERSON: Who appoints him?

Mr. J. JONES: Who selects him?

Sir E. POLLOCK: It is laid down by this House that where the claim is by an officer, one member shall be an officer, and where the claim to be heard is that of a man, one member shall be a man who is drawn from the ex-service class.

HON. MEMBERS: Who nominates him?

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Do the ex-service men's clubs nominate him, or is he selected by the Government?

Sir E. POLLOCK: Are we to draw distinctions between ex-service men? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] Let us understand. Is it contended that some ex-service men are totally incompetent to hear the claims of ex-service men? Are we to differentiate in that way? Who is to make that differentiation? I think that hon. Members should pause a very long time before they make so gross an insinuation.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: That is a legal quibble.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I must ask hon. Members not to interrupt.

Mr. MACLEAN: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not in a Law Court now; he is in the House of Commons.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I am appreciating that fact; I am not at all unconscious of it. That is the tribunal which has been set up. The right hon. Member for West Fife says, "Cannot we give a still further appeal to another tribunal?" That is to postpone finality until another tribunal has heard the cases. His suggestion is that there should be a National Appeal Board, to which all the cases which have been turned down should go, and he makes the very fair point that in that way we could follow the ordinary practice of appeals from a County Court to a Divisional Court, and then to the Court of Appeal and to the House of Lords. But he overlooked the fact that, under our system, there is no right to proceed by that sequence of Courts. There is no appeal from a County Court on a question of fact; there is an appeal only on a question of law. You cannot appeal from a Divisional Court except by leave of the Court itself. The result is that it is not every case which proceeds by this chain of Courts.
Suppose that the Pension Appeal Tribunal were entrusted with the duty of giving leave to appeal to the Court which is described as a National Appeal Board. I do not think that that would be quite adequate to fulfil the purpose which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. At any rate, it indicates that if a case should go further there would have to be some sort of sorting-out of cases which are to go to this final Appeal Board. Let us see what the problem is. About 90,000 cases have been decided by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. It is quite clear that it would be impossible to go over the whole of those cases again. Nor do I think it would be desirable. Next, let us see what we mean by justice. The claim has been so constantly made for what is called justice. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that in every case where a claim is made there ought to be and must be eventually an award made in favour of the ex-service man? If that is what he means by justice, it is an inappropriate term to use. We, therefore, come back
to that on which, I suppose, we are all agreed. First of all, in order to establish a claim, it is right that the claim should be based on the fact that some injury has been suffered in the course of or arising out of the War. I use a loose expression to order to convey my meaning. The actual words are, "attributable to or aggravated by." I do not suppose that any hon. Member would suggest that, unless it was established as a matter of fact that the disability was attributable to or aggravated by the War, a pension was due. It must be in consequence of the injury suffered in or arising from the War that we award a pension.
10.0 P.M.
We start from that basis. That must be a question of fact. It must be decided, after the evidence has been brought to bear, after the opinions of doctors, and after the story told by the man himself. We have, first of all, to get some tribunal which will investigate the facts quite fairly and decide whether or not the injuries suffered are attributable to or aggravated by the War. No doubt difficult questions arise. We all know that in matters which depend upon examination by medical men you can get divergent opinions from them. It would be quite possible to walk up and down Harley Street and to collect an almost equal number of opinions on either side.

Mr. WATERSON: And in the legal profession.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I am very glad to associate my profession with the medical profession, because the problems that have to be solved, whether in law or medicine, are both complex and difficult. That decision has to be taken. It is said that after two further appeals—the original Board, the second Board, and the Pensions Appeal Tribunal—you must have a still further Board in order to get finality. Do not let any hon. Member suppose that you can form any criticism upon the work of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal by merely taking the numerical results of the decisions. As time goes on, and as the appeals get higher, it is quite likely that the number of unsuccessful cases will be larger. If any person will take the trouble to scrutinise the results of decisions in the Court of Appeal and in the House of Lords, he will find that the number of
appeals dismissed increases as you go higher. Therefore, if you mean by justice that you are to go on until you get to a Court at which the result must be favourable to the ex-service man, you, are probably failing to observe that in the limited number of cases which would go up and up, the probability is that if the original Court, the second Court, and the third Court have already agreed, you will find the greatest difficulty in persuading another Court to upset their decision.
The real point is this. I am going to assume that there are some cases—I think a very limited number—in which, either by the absence of some evidence or possibly by a mistake, an unfortunate decision has been reached. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a growing number. He and his friends and I have discussed the matter, and we agreed that the number of these cases is not at all large. Let us appreciate what the problem is. You cannot go over the whole number of cases again. You must entrust some body either the Pensions Appeal Tribunal or another tribunal with the duty of giving a decision as to whether there should be any anther appeal or re-hearing. The only ground on which you could allow a rehearing would be on the fact that some evidence had turned up which was not available before or by showing in view of some after-result, or the like, that the original decision in the light of further events had proved unsatisfactory. I confess, looking at the matter and scrutinising it, I am quite satisfied that the number of cases which would satisfy that test would be very small. Even supposing some system of that kind were set up, would it really satisfy the demand of the right hon. Gentleman! My own view, after a careful consideration, is that it would not. His demand is a very much wider demand. I think he has in mind the hope that ultimately everybody will be successful and he would be disappointed if at the end, when he had got a National Appeal Tribunal, any man failed to get an award. That is really what he has at heart, and I cannot hold out any hope that with any appeal tribunal, however high you get, that would be the result.
Therefore we are back to this proposition. Would it he possible to set up a
tribunal and give a right of appeal in a very limited number of cases, and to have some almost despotic authority to decide that there should or should not be a further hearing of any particular case? Would that meet what the right hon. Gentleman calls "the growing sense of injustice"? I do not think it would. I do not think you can draw any line between that and the rehearing of all cases in which the applicant would like to make a demand for a rehearing. I have given most careful consideration to this matter, as the right hon. Gentleman knows quite well. I have had consultations with various hon. Members, in order to see if we could arrive at some possible solution of this problem. I have laid down what I believe would be the necessary limits you would have to impose, and I do not believe that any Court subject to those necessary limitations would satisfy what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. If it would, then the matter would have to be dealt with in a further Act of Parliament. There are no powers at the present time under which such a system could be set up. It would have to be by fresh legislation, and if fresh legislation could be adopted and agreed upon generally in the House, subject to those conditions and safeguards which would have to be inserted and it may be to some others, which I have not taken time at the moment to lay down, I would certainly be glad to consider the matter in that light. But I venture to point out how difficult and complex the problem is, and how very serious it would he to raise hopes doomed to disappointment, by suggesting that everybody who failed to get an award in the first instance, would ultimately he given an award.
Although you might set right some of the cases, the existence of which I am going to assume without any further scrutiny, cases which would satisfy the test I have mentioned; I very much doubt, having regard to the fact that we must have finality somewhere, that it would be possible to reach finality and get rid of the sense of injustice by any scheme such as the right hon. Gentleman has indicated. Finally, may I point out that if a scheme be possible, which within those limits could do good I am quite ready to consider it, as I have endeavoured to consider all these proposals. I am merely telling the right hon. Gentleman across
the Floor of the House what I have told him in our conversations previously. I very glad to have the opportunity to discuss with him publicly what we have discussed so often in private. I cannot go further than that. These are limits which I think must be imposed, and all I would say is that the right hon. Gentleman will not., I know, claim that his sympathies are any greater than mine, or that I am not prepared to offer every possible consideration to these cases. Knowing quite well how fairly he will receive the observations I have made, and how fairly he has been prepared to work with me to find a solution of this question, I am grateful to him for raising the point and I am glad to have had the opportunity of expressing to him here what I have previously expressed to him in private.

Ex-SERVICE MEN (CIVIL SERVICE).

Mr. HOGGE: There is a very simple method by which the Attorney-General can set this matter right without any further discussion. I quite acknowledge that he is as sympathetic as any other Member of the House to the claims of the disabled men, but he is now defending an entirely unsympathetic scheme for dealing with them. There is only one safe rule—a rule which this House refused to adopt, but which the nation would favour if it had an opportunity of expressing its opinion. That rule is that every man who was fit to fight is fit to be pensioned. That is the only rule by which the Government can settle this question satisfactorily. I know these Appeal Tribunals. I have appeared before them. I went before one last week on behalf of a discharged soldier in Canada who nominated me as his representative, and I secured the continuance of his pension. I am perfectly certain if the discharged man had gone instead of me he would never have smelt his pension. The average discharged man does not possess the intelligence of the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson), and would never be able to make his own case and secure his award. It is ironic that the Government to-day are paying doctors as members of these tribunals, who formerly accepted men as fit to go into the Army, and who are now proving that these men are not fit to receive pensions. It is all humbug, and the Government know that, and the Attorney-General ought to be ashamed to make that defence of these
tribunals. The real truth is that when we needed these men to fight hon. Members opposite went down on their bended knees to get them to do so.

Mr. J. JONES: And got Bottomley to help them.

Mr. HOGGE: If the hon. Member will allow me to make this speech it will be all right. Now when these men require pensions the "stunt" on the Government Benches is "economy." You must not pay those men to subsist now in the country for which they fought. Is it not a matter for comparison that the Prime Minister, who is absent now, who is always absent when ex-service men's claims are being put forward—[HON. MEMBERS "Withdraw!"]— who is always absent when ex-service men's claims are being put forward, thought it worth his while to come down this afternoon to plead with this House for 2,500 civil servants in India, who are drawing good pay and who will draw good pensions, and whom he asks this House and this country to support in carrying out their trust. We will do that. The Indian civil servant took on his occupation, knowing what he was doing, on the terms on which his occupation is based, and this country will see that man through. Nobody in this House will ever go back on the conditions laid down for that man; but the Prime Minister has thought it worth his while to spend a couple of hours this afternoon in pleading for 2,500 civil servants, who are not hard up, who will have pensions, and now, when we are discussing the question of pensions for disabled men, and I am going on to discuss the question of the employment of the men for whom we promised work, where is your Prime Minister?

Lord E. PERCY: Where is Asquith? Where is Clynes?

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Where are the 400 Coalition Members?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would appeal to hon. Members on both sides not to interrupt. There are many important subjects to be discussed on the Appropriation Bill, and no doubt the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) will come to his subject without further delay, and will be allowed to proceed.

Mr. HOGGE: It does not matter whether I am allowed to proceed or not, but so far I am absolutely in order in continuing the discussion when the Attorney-General sat down.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I did not say the hon. Member was not in order, but I was only suggesting that a number of red herrings were being drawn across the trail from various quarters of the House.

Mr. HOGGE: I have not touched any of the red herrings yet. The point I want to address to the House is the cognate case of the pledge made by this Government to our ex-service men. There arc to-day in our Civil Service something like 40,000 ex-service men who are hoping they will be retained inside the Civil Service. The Government have adopted a rather curious method of selecting these men. There have been different methods of selecting men throughout history, from the days of Gideon to the days of the Coalition Government, but this Government have adopted a most extraordinary method of selecting ex-service civil servants. The House will remember that those men have been fighting for five or six years. They are suffering from all kinds of physical disabilities, and, instead of being given posts in the permanent Civil Service, they are being examined in order to find out whether they possess the requisite abilities for posts in the Civil Service. For the information of the House, I have secured a copy of the question papers which were set for our temporarily employed ex-service civil servants on the last occasion. There are many Members of this House who not only have sat at examinations, but who have set examinations, and they will be interested in the kind of tests put to men who fought in order to defend the Empire so that they might achieve a salary commencing at £80 a year. Here is a paper set in December, 1920. The first question says:
Write here the name of the first liquid in the following list, if it is commonly drunk; but if it is not put a cross instead, and if it has an 'e' in it, underline whatever you have put:
House, bean, sugar, paraffin, coffee, milk, cheese.

Mr. MACLEAN: Coalition diet?

Mr. HOGGE: Here is another question which, I think, would puzzle the ingenuity of most of us:
If 5 x 6 = 35 write down 'right' here. If 9 x 9 = 72 write down 'wrong' here. If you have written down 'right,' cross it out; if you have written down 'wrong' alter the figures preceding that word so as to make them really wrong.
Let me read one other test in this peculiar examination. This is put within quotation marks:
earth the the warms sun.
Then the discharged temporarily employed Civil Service ex-service man is asked this problem:
Rewrite the above sentence so that the word that would be the middle one if it were re-arranged so as to be true now comes last, whilst the remaining words are in the right order, but the one now first is spelt backwards.
I am quite sure there is only one in the House who could do it, and that is the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson), who can do everything, see everything, and think everything. That is a typical test which I have read. I am not unfair. I have not read some of the worst ones. That is a typical examination paper sent to men who have served in the War, in order that they may pass on from a temporary post to their first stage in the permanent Service, which carries with it £80 a year, which is the sum that the Government is prepared to pay even to youths of 18 or 19 beginning their service. What is the use of talking about the sacrifice made in the War, and to talk about the pledges made by the Government to ex-service men, if at the end of their five years' fighting they have to answer conundrums of that kind? He might as well be asked what is the difference between a Coalitionist and a Co-optimist!
What do the ex-service men ask should be done to-day? They say, "After all, we are men of experience; we gave up our careers to fight; we sacrificed five years of our professional advancement, either industrial, trade, or professional, in order to fight; if we are going to get a place at all in the Civil Service, give it us on the experience you have had of our temporary service." Their terms are perfectly simple. They ask that if you will not permit that, to either suspend the examinations for the Civil Service or, if you cannot do that, give them a percentage of the appointments. What
reply has been made? That it would not be fair to the boys of the public schools. But these boys, and later the young men from the universities, starting out in life, have every profession before them to enter except this one. Surely no one is now going to say that these posts ought not to be given to the ex-service men that have fought in preference to boys who are leaving school and have the world before them? There is a very great difference between the man who has the world at his feet and the man who has the War at his back. I say deliberately that the Government are not playing fair to the ex-service man, and not making it easier for him to attain to these positions in the Civil Service. There are others who do not agree with me politically but who are quite with me on this question and who wish to support these points; they wish to speak, and I shall leave it to them to fill in some of the details. I pass over the question of the difference in salary offered to the ex-service man and the man who is in the Civil Service, to approach a more difficult question, which I am not afraid to face, in the continuous employment of women as against the ex-service men.
As a matter of fact, we do know that during the War many women came into offices and into the public service because the men were fighting. Far too many of these women have been retained after the fighting men have come back. I certainly say that it is not only ironical but scandalous that after the fighting man has come back he has to walk about unemployed, as often is the case, or stand in queues at the Employment Exchanges while these women are retained in these offices. There are in the Pensions Issue Office a large number of women who might easily be dispensed with as long as the ex-service man is outside and unemployed. There is another class of which we have heard a good deal, and that is the man in these services who has not fought and who was taken on temporarily. There is a peculiar case which we had in Question and Answer the other day in regard to the Post Office. The Postmaster-General was appealed to by the ex-service men, and by many Members of this House, in regard to an intelligence officer who was appointed about ten months ago. In dealing with the reason why he should not dispense with the services of that man,
the Postmaster-General said that he had considered the suggestion made by the ex-service men, but that the man—I will not mention his name—did his best to join the Army, and it was unfair that he should be penalised because that effort was not successful. That is the real reason why the Postmaster-General turned down the claim of that man. Surely there is an enormous difference between a man taken into any of the services since the War began or since peace was declared, and the man who joined any of those services at the beginning of the War because he could not fight.
I will give an instance. I remember when the War broke out my own political agent in Edinburgh was of military age, and he tried over and over again to join the Army. It was found that he was absolutely unfit to join the Army, and when he had any leisure he used to spend it attending medical boards. Later, he became very efficient in the administration of pensions and, when the Pensions Ministry was set up, the authorities came to me and asked me if I could find them a man who understood pensions who could help them at the Ministry of Pensions in Scotland, and I allowed them to have my political agent. He was taken into the service when everybody else was fighting, he has been there ever since and has done excellent work. His services are now being dispensed with because they are employing Service men, and I do not complain. In the case I have referred to in the Post Office it is a man who was taken on only ten months ago, and yet the Postmaster-General says he cannot be got rid of for an ex-service man, whereas my agent, who could not get into the Army and has done admirable work, is being sacked. The Postmaster-General ten months ago took a man into the same service and yet he says that he cannot substitute an ex-service man. I say that is nonsense, and this kind of thing makes the ex-service man sit up and take notice.
It is not fair and it is just what makes so many of these men suffer. After all, we were either honest or dishonest about the things we said during the War and the sacrifice these men made. I think it is somewhat ironical that at half-past ten
o'clock to-night we should be beginning a Debate in order to stake out a better claim for the redemption of a pledge made by the Government to these men. It is ironical that the ex-service man should be put through it in this way. This is not a party question, and if I thought it was I would not speak upon it. This is the redemption of a pledge, and we are all in this, particularly those in the House now who were with me during the War. We know what was said, we know the kind of instructions we were given when we were requested to go into the country to ask the men to join up. Having accepted those pledges from the Government and having appealed to the country and said those things, I am not prepared to keep silent until the Government are prepared to face the facts. The facts are these. You have got your 40,000 temporarily employed ex-service men in the Civil Service. If the present system goes on they will be driven out a few at a time so quietly that public opinion will not be aroused. They will be forgotten. For Heaven's sake do not let us forget them. Let the House redeem its pledge to them. I hope those hon. Members who are going to do me the honour of supporting me will regard this matter from the point of view that we should continue to be associated in the spirit which was begun during the War, when many of us who were violent opponents dropped party and acted in the spirit of community. Let us continue in that spirit until at any rate we have redeemed our pledges to these men.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I am very glad, although it is so late in the Session, that we have had an opportunity of raising the question of the treatment of ex-service men in the Civil Service. I do not think that treatment is what public opinion would support, and it certainly is not what the Lytton Committee recommended. That Committee recommended that the claims of ex-service men should be paramount. It further recommended that suitable ex-service men and women should have priority in the nation's service, and I am sure that opinion was endorsed, not only by the country but by everyone in the House, except hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench who are responsible for their Departments. The problem of these men in the Civil Service was not at all an
unmanageable one. There were only 45,000 of them on a temporary basis who had to be dealt with. There is a wastage of from 8,000 to 10,000 a year in the Established Civil Service, and I am informed that during the next two years it would have been quite easy to absorb ail competent ex-service men who had been taken on on a temporary basis. That would have been an advantage not only to the men but also to the State. They are men of experience; men who have learnt their work not at school like boys of 19, but in various businesses and in Government offices. Further than that, the State would have had this advantage. These men came in late in life—the average age was 33—and would have involved a lesser pension bill at the end of their service than would have been incurred in the case of boys, because the pension is based on the number of years' service; if a man came into the Service at 33 years of age instead of at 18, when the State had had full value out of him, that man would get far less pension than the boy of 19, who it is apparently the policy of the Government to prefer to the men who fought for us during the War.
The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) gave us some very interesting examples from the examination papers which these men have been called upon to do. No doubt the examination test is reasonable in theory, but it is not a good method in cases where you can have the test of experience of a man's work. You have to eliminate the unsuitable in some way. That is admitted by the ex-service men themselves. But I do not believe that the examination test is satisfactory. In the first place, out of 20,000 recently examined 16,000 have been turned down. Surely it was an impossible standard that was set up. I believe that when this House agreed, if they ever did, to this examination being set up for ex-service men, they meant it to be a qualifying examination, and not a severe competitive examination of this kind. I should like the House to hear a few more of these questions. The hon. Member who read out the others was dealing with the general paper, which, apparently, was a test of wit and humour. That is the only motive that I can find for it. I now come to arithmetic. Arithmetic is supposed to be an exact study, and in arithmetic, at least, there certainly ought to be no room
for wit and humour. What is the object of this question:—
If the line A B below represents a length of 10 feet, find the length and breadth, to the nearest square foot, of the room C D E F.
How are you to find the length in square feet, or the breadth in square feet? The most excellent arithmetician might be puzzled by that sort of question. Then let me take a question from the general paper—
'The whole of a thing is greater than part of it.' If that statement is untrue, underline the word in it having the largest number of letters. Otherwise, write 'yes' at the end of this instruction, and if you have not had to underline any of the words before, do so to the word you have written.
Another question—
Add together the first three odd numbers, and if the sum is not an exact multiple of three, draw a line through every three in this instruction, except the second, but otherwise draw a line under instead of through the same words.
I do not know whether this paper was set by a conscientious objector to knock out all the men who have fought in the War. I think it would be an admirable paper if an examination were being held for testing candidates for fitness to be employed as attendants in a lunatic asylum; or I think any of us who have had experience of children, and who remember the craze that children at certain periods of their life develop for idiotic riddles, might feel that it was a fit examination paper for nursery maids; but I think that men who are able to answer such idiotic questions are best kept out of the Civil Service.
Again, nearly half of this paper, which I see is called an "Intelligence" paper, is composed of elaborate missing word competitions. This is the sort of thing—there are six different tests—
Public-house is to Barman as Hotel is to …
We can all think of answers to that. One might answer, "As hotel is to 'maid,' or 'waiter,' or 'groom,' or 'porter,' or 'ostler,' or 'manager'"; and I dare say any hon. Member can think of further answers. How is that any test of a man's fitness for the Civil Service? It is a matter of luck. It is not the same examiner who is going right through 20,000 papers, and it is an absolute gamble, in a missing word com-
petition, whether you get the right answer. Then there is:
Body is to Heart as Clock is to … "—
I know not what. Then there is another kind of competition where the right word is to be chosen out of four supplied—
Bubble is to Temporary as Universe is to"—
"planet," or "space," or "immense," or "permanent"—which? I could go on convulsing the House with this paper, but that is not my object. I think the taxpayer will object to the Civil Service being recruited owing to their proficiency in these missing word competitions. Perhaps it is the idea of the Government that the civil servant is so underpaid that he must eke out his salary by competing in competitions in "John Bull" and other organs of the Press. I think that is a very humiliating position for the Civil Service. They ought to be selected, not for their skill in these idiotic riddles, but for their fitness for the Service. This test has knocked out men of long experience in various professions—men with university degrees, barristers, and men of all kinds of different occupations—and it is perfectly absurd, on the test of this sort of paper, to knock four-fifths of these mature men out of the Civil Service. This ridiculous examination system should be brought to an end, and the men should be made permanent on the recommendation of the heads of their Department. If anyone ought to be turned out of the Civil Service, it is the men who set these riddles. Examinations are very good for testing people if you have only a short. time, but these civil servants in a temporary capacity have been tested now for three or four years, and surely there is nothing like so efficient a test in a haphazard examination of this kind as there is in the test of proficiency by men who have worked with approbation in a public Department.
Now let me come to the position of those fortunate people who have satisfied the examiners. What are they going to be paid? The Lytton Report recommended a certain scale of pay. Although coming to this Service at a considerably greater age than the boys who are normally recruited, they recommended that they should get exactly the same pay as the
boy who came in at the age of 18. Look at the effect. Men who have been employed in a temporary capacity have to drop a great proportion of their pay when they get established. Grade 3 temporary men, receiving £188, will be dropped to £164, and Grade 2 temporary men, with £228, will drop to £184—that is pay and bonus in each case—and Grade 1, £249, down to £200. That is a big penalty for this great prize of establishment, to lose a fifth of your pay and to drop a man of 33. which is the average age, to a basic salary of 280 plus bonus, which works out at £164 at present, is to drop into a disgraceful and sweated wage. That is out all. Take the case of men on a rather higher grade—temporary officials who work up to £400 to £700 per annum. They drop at one step from £700 to £272. It is simply a method of driving out these men of experience and ability from the Civil Service. It was most unsatisfactory that the Lytton Committee should have reported on this at all. I do not think it was their province. It was not in their terms of reference. The Lytton Committee were told to report "as to the existing arrangements for the appointment of ex-service men to posts, whether permanent or temporary in His Majesty's Civil Service, and to advise what modifications, if any, should be made therein." Anyone reading that would not expect they were going into the matter of pay, especially as that matter of pay for ex-service men who were to be established had already been worked out by the sub-committees of the Whitley Council. Because it was not in the terms of reference the Lytton Committee never really heard the case. The Whitley Council had recommended a very much better scale. Instead of a man starting uniformly at £80 a year, as a basic salary, whatever may be the age, they recommended that men should start on a certain scale, giving them weight for age. I understand that the Treasury dispute that, so let me read what the Subcommittee of the Whitley Council recommended, so that they do not ride off on that pretence. This is a paragraph in the Joint Committee on the organisation of the Civil Service, which reported on 17th February, 1920, before the Lytton Report—
We recommend for male members of this class"—
That is Grade 3, to which I have been chiefly referring—
the following scales of salary:—£60 a year on entry, rising to £80 a year at the age of 18; thence by annual increments of £5 to £100 a year; and thence by annual increments of £10 to £120, at 24,
and so on, the scale for age going right up to the age of 36. It cannot be pretended that that was not to apply to ex-service men, because I have an extract from the Sub-Committee on Temporary Staffs, also of the Whitley Committee, which reported on 24th February, 1920. They recommended that this weight for age system should be adopted. They say, in paragraph 9, that
Members of the temporary staffs appointed to the establishment should be eligible for age pay so far as that is provided in the scales of pay of the established classes.
That is, that they should not all go in at the uniform pay given to a boy of 18, though they are married men, but should get the same allowance as if they had worked up from the age of 18. There is no doubt that that is the distinct meaning of this recommendation of the Sub-Committee of the Whitley Council.
It was with great astonishment that ex-service men found that the Lytton Committee upset the whole of this arrangement, and, without having heard any evidence from the men concerned, threw aside this agreed basis which had been gone into by both the staff side and the official side, and substituted a much lower scale of pay, starting at the same basis of 18, but without any weight, for age of any time. The ex-service men appealed to the Civil Service Arbitration Board. They did not appeal, as they might have, for the full benefit of this supplementary pay recommended by the Whitley Sub-Committee, because there was a cry for economy, and as patriotic men they recognised that they, like others, had to make sacrifices. So they only applied that men up to 26 should get this weight for age, and that if over 26 they should start on a scale as though they were only 26 when first established. The Civil Service Arbitration Board admitted the justice of the claim. This is an extract from their Report. They say you must have one principle, but
The Board feel that in the application of this principle to a class of employés comprising officers of widely different qualifications and ages it may be practicable for the
employing Departments, in consultation with their Lordships' officers, to mitigate any hardships which may arise in individual cases.
That admits the justice of the claim, but it brings forward an absolutely impracticable method of dealing with it. You cannot leave it to Departmental action to give special rates of pay to special cases.
I would urge that we should have another inquiry and allow these ex-service men to state their claims and grievances. I do not think you can reestablish the Lytton Committee, because Lord Lytton is now in India, and of the two Members of this House, one, who used to sit on this bench—the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Edward Wood)—has, I regret to say, departed and joined the Government. So we have to have some other sort of tribune, and I suggest that a Select Committee of this House he set up to consider the whole of this grievance.
As I have kept the House so long on this point, I will not develop any others. There are many other unsatisfactory features in the position of the ex-service men. The scale seems tilted against them in every direction. The Lytton Committee recommended that messengers should only be recruited from ex-service men. That has never been adopted. These messengers, the lowest-paid men, get no sick pay. The recommendations as to substitution have been continuously evaded. Various public Departments, especially the Post Office, have consistently ignored the rule that they are only to appoint men through the Joint Substitution Board. Then there is the point raised as to the staffing of the Pensions Ministry. All these questions ought to go to a Select Committee. I do not know what is the reason of this defect in these matters. It may be the fault of the officials, or it may he the pre-occupation of the Ministers in other matters. If you go into these cases, you get the impression that the Government is grossly indifferent to the claims of these ex-service men. Whatever the Government may have done, I do not believe that the country has forgotten the men who fought. It is in no spirit hostile to the Government, but in their own interest, that I beg them to appoint a Committee and to get their house in order so as to avoid the just arid inevitable reckoning
if the present injustices are allowed to continue.

Captain LOSEBY: I am sorry that this Debate has come on so late to-night, because the problem of the ex-service man in the Civil Service is one involving such important principles that it is impossible to explain the position in the time at our disposal. I wish to impress the House with the circumstances under which the majority of those men entered the temporary Civil Service, and the reasons why they have a claim for sympathy. When the. War was being fought the business of the country had to be carried on, and it was carried on properly and efficiently by the people who stayed behind, some of whom were women, some old men, and some men whose consciences dictated to them that they could better serve their country by pursuing their usual avocations. Whether they were right or wrong in that view, the dominating fact remains that when the ex-service man returned from the War—this fact is not completely understood by the civil population—he found every position in the industrial, professional and business world and the Civil Service occupied and entrenched against him. That was the case in regard to all the great professions. In my own profession it was almost impossible, owing to the manner in which the tactical positions had been occupied and dominated, for a man who had served his country to get a fair living.
11.0 P.M.
These were the men who relied upon the promises made by the Government. They are crowded out of their own professions; they are crowded out of occupation in civil life, and they took refuge in the temporary Civil Service. I believe that in many respects the Government has done its best. I make the point, because, in regard to these temporary men, I would join issue immediately with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who, if he is reported correctly, dealing with this particular problem, laid down the dictum that you can judge of the adequacy of a man's salary by his willingness or otherwise to accept it. At normal economic times that may be true, but when you had 6,000,000 men who could not possibly be replaced in civil life, for whom there was no room, it is not
right to say that because a barrister or doctor or accountant is willing to take £3 a week rather than starve, therefore he is worth only £3 a week. The hon. Member for Mosley, speaking in the House last week, said that the ex-service man wanted to be only a member of the civil population—he was no longer an ex-service man. Unless you are willing to treat this man on a basis that is not entirely an economic basis, he can never regain his position in the civil life of the country.
There is talk now of cutting the pay of these temporary men. These ex-service men in the Civil Service are fighting I understand for a pre-War grade of 38s. I dined to-night with a gentleman who is not particularly interest ed in this problem, and he told me that in his room as Grade 3 clerks, now fighting for 383. a week, he has an ex-architect, an ex-Guards officer, an M.R.C.S. and an L.R.C.P., and these men are glad to be getting that pay. It is unfair to insist on treating these men simply upon an economic basis. That is a consideration which I urge upon the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when he is dealing with this point. I am well aware of the sympathy which he has with ex-service men and the extraordinary difficulty presented by this problem. As to permanency the ex-service man says:
It is not right that anybody with a less claim than myself should be introduced into the Service from outside until every competent ex-service man—and no claim is made for incompetent men—who is inside has been absorbed into the permanent Service.
That was discussed by the Lytton Committee, and this was what the Lytton Committee agreed to: First of all, on behalf of the ex-service men, they stated that, in their opinion, in order to secure efficiency, seeing that these people were no longer children of 18, but men of 34 or 38, some barristers, some accountants, some doctors, their Bar degrees, their doctors' degrees, their architects' degrees, or their accountants' degrees, might be taken into consideration and be regarded as a primâ facie test of efficiency for a Grade 3 clerkship. It was urged that the ordinary tests which are applied in business might be made to apply in these cases, in view of the special difficulties. But it was pointed out by the permanent civil servants that it was necessary to have some kind of primâa facie test as to competency for a particular job. It is strange that the
Government was not able to trust its Own heads of Departments, because the ex-service men asked for no more than that. The ex-service man said: "Let me be judged by my own head of Department as to my efficiency!" Nevertheless, it was agreed that this examination should be held. It was clearly recommended by the Lytton Committee—and the promise was given that the recommendation would he observed in the spirit as well as in the letter—that this primâa facie test should be applied. In fact, what did we get? We got the type of examination paper which has been quoted to-night well suited to a child of 18, but ridiculous in this connection, and not calculated to find out the most competent man. It was a direct violation of the spirit of the Lytton Report.
I want to deal briefly with the question of the initial salary received by these men. I have some responsibility here, because I had the honour of serving on the Lytton Committee which made the recommendation. It is right and proper that I should say that I was wrong in my opinion, and I know that other members of the Committee think that they were wrong in regard to the recommendation made for the initial salary. We would join with both the hon. Members, who have spoken on this subject, in pressing for a solution of this matter. I hope it will be agreed to send the question to some Committee, which will review the recommendation made. I do not think I am called upon now to state the reasons for my change of opinion. I was deceived, not intentionally, of course, by certain evidence which was brought before us. It was brought forward at the fag-end of a very long Sitting. I think it would be well to get that initial salary reviewed. We did not realise that the sliding scale did not apply to the temporary salaries, but did apply to the permanent salaries. This was the simple point. The salaries of these men did not increase with the rise in the cost of living, yet, when they became permanent, their salaries decreased. The result of practical experience was that no man could afford to become permanent if he remained temporary he was better off. It is absolutely impossible in the time at our disposal to make out the case adequately, but I sincerely hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will view with
sympathy the request for a Committee to review the question of initial salaries.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): This subject is not one to which there are two sides. There is only one side—the desire to do everything to recognise the debt of the State to the ex-service men, compatible with the over-riding interest of the public service and national welfare. There is only one side, but there are two ways of approaching the question. There is the method of looking at it only from the ex-service man's point of view, and very naturally and rightly the advocates of the ex-service man, as such, have looked at it from that angle. I think they have in many respects over-stated their case—very much over-stated it—and in many particulars misstated the position of affairs— very gravely misstated it. Nevertheless, the point of view from which I approach it is not devoid of sympathy. It is, I say, the desire that the utmost possible should be done to recognise the high debt of the State to the ex-service man, only, of course, one has to temper that, from the standpoint of a Treasury Minister, with what is possible and practicable, in view of the overriding interests of the nation as a whole. Let me deal, in the very short time I have allowed myself, with one or two of the chief points of criticism which have been raised. It is, I think, definitely suggested by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) that the Government are not giving due preference to the ex-service men in admitting them to the temporary ranks of the service. The phrase was used, I think, that we are giving preference to boys.

Mr. HOGGE: indicated dissent.

Mr. YOUNG: I thought I was quoting the actual words. I am quoting the spirit. That is a misrepresentation.

Mr. HOGGE: I do not wish my hon. Friend to put the case wrongly. What, I said was that the only objection I had ever heard urged to the admission of temporarily employed ex-service men to permanencies was that it would destroy the ordinary admission to the Civil Service of boys coming from public schools. What I then said was that these boys could go in for every other profession, while the temporarily employed ex-service
man was precluded from going in for these professions.

Mr. YOUNG: I accept the correction. I probably misunderstood the bearing of the hon. Gentleman's argument. I want to get, quite shortly, a general view of what is being done for the ex-service men as regards appointments and so on, in order to remove the impression, which I am afraid was created by some of the overstatements which have been made, that the Government was not doing its best. We have the recommendation of the Lytton Committee that 70 per cent. of the vacancies in temporary appointments shall be reserved to the ex-service men. That is being done and carried out. Until April next year 70 per cent. of all the positions that fall vacant in the temporary branches of the Service will be filled up with ex-service men. After April next year the percentage will be reduced to 50, until all qualified ex-service men have been worked off. That is being done, and we are absolutely fulfilling the undertaking.
Now let me deal with the next point raised in criticism, which is the point of the examination. That is the result of a recommendation by the Lytton Committee, who set out, in their Report, the arguments in favour of an educational qualifying test. In one of the paragraphs, the Lytton Committee say:
We are of the opinion that some form of examination is necessary to test the relative efficiency of those now in temporary employment for selection for permanent posts, if only for the purpose of a general review of the qualifications of ex-service candidates.
The alternative suggested to us of inviting the heads of the various offices to recommend the retention of those whom they consider efficient would not, in our opinion, prove a satisfactory or even an equitable solution, inasmuch as there are upwards of 80 different Government Departments to be considered.
That is the whole point. You have to get a uniform test, and I think it will commend itself to commonsense that it is necessary to have some simple educational test. After all, the temporary branches were recruited in a very rough and summary way during the War, and, in the interests of the efficiency of the public service, before passing temporary men on, it is necessary to have some simple educational test to make sure that they are capable of performing their
permanent duties. As to the nature of the questions put, they ale drawn up by the Civil Service Commissioners in their wisdom.

Mr. HOGGE: In their what?

Mr. YOUNG: I am not sure that it would not be possible to make fun of any examination paper, and some you can make more fun of than others. I thought the paper which was quoted was a good paper in one way, in that there was a definite graduation in the difficulty of the questions asked. I mean that there was one which I knew I could have answered, then one I thought I might have answered, and then one I was quite sure I could not have answered, and that is the right way in which questions ought to come in examination papers. There must have been difficulties in devising an educational test for ex-service men, who have long left school and are not prepared for examinations, and I am sure that every effort has been made to adjust the papers in question to the purposes of the examination. As regards the number of rejections, the answer to that is that 70 per cent. of the vacancies, carrying out the recommendation of the Lytton Committee, will actually be filled as vacancies fall in, and they are being filled new and we are taking, in fact, all the ex-service men for whom we have room.

Mr. HOGGE: In what branch?

Mr. YOUNG: I am speaking of the clerical ranks now, as they are so very much the most important numerically. The others are worth not nearly so much attention from that point of view. Besides, the House will remember that in accordance with the recommendation of the Lytton Committee, a special procedure has been adopted for giving a man a second chance if he fails to qualify. If the head of the Department thinks that a man ought to be taken on, even although he has failed to qualify, he has the chance of going before the Investigation Board and getting another opportunity.
As regards the general fulfilling of the pledge, let me give the House the figures of what has been achieved in the substitution of ex-service men for non-service men and women for temporary employment in the Civil Service. The figures are so striking that I think they
will create an impression. Between the 1st January, 1920, after the first effort at substitution had been made, and the 1st March, 1922, ex-service men in temporary employment had increased by 30,000. During the same period, the total number of civil servants in temporary employment had decreased by 35,000, so that, even while the great decrease was going on, owing to the exigency of national finance, the actual increase of ex-service men in temporary employment had been 30,000. Let me take a wider case of what has been done for ex-service men since the Armistice. In rather less than three years the total of the temporary personnel of the Civil Service has decreased by 50 per cent. During that great effort at reduction of temporary staff, the total ex-service men employed in temporary work had increased by 100 per cent. I think that those figures, which are all in the White Paper, speak for themselves. At the present time, the percentage of the total ex-service personnel in temporary employment is over 60 per cent., and the percentage of disabled men in temporary employment and in permanent employment is 13.75. Anyone who compares those figures with those of any other employers will see that they are figures of which we need not be ashamed, but of which we may be proud, indeed, and they are positive evidence that in this respect the Government is setting an example. So it ought, of course. It is doing no more than its obvious duty, but I think there is good reason to suppose from those figures that the duty is being adequately performed.
Let me pass to the other criticism that was raised, which was as to the commencing salary of ex-service men who are transferred from temporary employment to permanent employment. There, again, you have a very difficult middle path to steer. In taking on men in an irregular way at a more advanced age than usual, they cannot, of course, expect to be earning the same wages that men of their own age are earning who have long experience of the Service. On the other hand, you have to make some allowance for the hardship of their position, and take into consideration the interruption of their careers during the War. That was exactly the question investigated with great care by the Lytton Committee. They came to the conclusion that the fairest way to combine the interests of the State with
the interests of the ex-service men was to start the man in his permanent employment on the basis of the salary that he was earning in his temporary employment. There is essential reasonability in that. It has been suggested that ex-service men were started in their employment at £80 a year.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Only in Grade 3.

Mr. YOUNG: How misleading it would be if that impression were left in the minds of the Members.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Nobody said it.

Mr. YOUNG: It is only in Grade 3, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman so justly reminds the House, that that figure of £80 comes in at all. It comes in only as the basic rate of salary. A man getting that with bonus has £164 a year, and that is the lowest rate. In Grade 2 he begins on a basis of £90, the actual salary being £184. Other salaries are: basic rate £100, actual salary £200; and in the few cases of larger salaries; basic rate £150, actual salary £274. These salaries will be found by hon. Members who take the trouble to make the comparison with the salaries paid for not dissimilar services outside to be not unreasonable in relation to the scales of salaries in ordinary employment—and that is an ascertained fact. Allowance is made in the scheme for differences in the attainments of the men, and a reasonable adjustment made between the claims of the public interest and the very great consideration that ought to be paid to the interests of the ex-service men. An appeal is made for the further consideration of this matter. Naturally one is always ready to give the most careful consideration to a matter so vitally affecting the welfare of the Civil Service clerks. But this question was considered by the Lytton Committee judicially and impartially, a committee containing ex-service men, among whom was the hon. and gallant Member for East Bradford (Captain Loseby). He seems to have changed his point of view.

Captain LOSEBY: Following further evidence.

Mr. YOUNG: The hon. and gallant Gentleman does an injustice to the extremely experienced and able Members of the Committee if he suggests that many
of them were under the impression that the salaries of the temporary members of the Civil Service were on a sliding scale. The system must have been known to those highly-experienced gentlemen who so thoroughly, and for so prolonged a time, investigated far more intricate and far more advanced matters in connection with the rates of pay. That is an error which cannot have been present in the mind of any other Member of the Committee. Again, the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness) has made one error of fact, and a very natural error in a field of administration so complicated. It is quite a mistake to suppose that the original scheme drawn up by the Reorganisation Committee of the National Whitley Council would have given the ex-service men any better result than that recommended by the Committee; in fact, the contrary is the case. The original scheme drawn up by the Reorganisation Committee, reasonably interpreted, is that all temporary ex-service men would have come in at the basic rate of £80 a year, which is worse than the actual scheme recommended.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Did the hon. and gallant Gentleman hear the quotations which I gave, because the second one distinctly recommended that the men coming in should have this weight for age allowance.

Mr. YOUNG: That is a technical matter. The actual words of the recommendation were that they should have the weight for age allowance so far as it is applicable to the Department concerned. The only case where weight for age allowance arises is where the applicant is under the age of 18.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The other Sub-committee to which I referred recommended that this weight for age allowance should be given to all men in Grade 3 taken on for employment on a permanent basis.

Mr. YOUNG: The recommendation was that weight for age allowance should be given so far as it was applicable to the Department concerned, and the only applicable weight for age allowance would be for boys under 18, and there were none. That point was actually raised before the Civil Service Arbitration Board and was dismissed as being of no substance.
This case was thrashed out with immense vigour and fullness before the Civil Service Arbitration Board as between the staff side and the official side, and they came to the conclusion that the decision of the Whitley Committee was a right one, and that is what the Government are now upholding. We have really as regards the commencing salary adopted a scheme which on its basis is a reasonable one and probably the only practical one that could have been arrived at which gives actual salaries which are not out of relation to what they ought to be in comparison with outside rates. Hard cases must arise and hon. Members are aware that they are not confined to the Government service; they occur among all classes of clerical salaries, but that is no reason why the Government should pay better salaries than the best paid by good employers outside.
In the third place, this point has been thrashed out by impartial expert bodies and by a responsible body like the Civil Service Arbitration Board, and, therefore, we could not serve any useful purpose by referring the matter again to another body. I think I have now dealt with the principal criticisms advanced against the manner in which the ex-service man is being assisted in Government Departments. I think the key to the difficulty of giving assistance to the ex-service men lies in the work of the Departmental Committees which are carrying on the work of substitution in every Department by which ex-service men are being substituted, and in the way in which the whole administration of the Joint. Substitution Board by which all the various Departments of the Civil Service are co-ordinated is carried out because they have to see that no opportunity of an efficient ex-service man being employed is dismissed for lack of information. The Joint Substitution Board is a bit of machinery by which we get these posts made available for ex-service men, but the real harvest of substitution has already been reached. Nevertheless, the work is still going on, and I renew the assurance which has often been given to the House that it is the policy of the Government to continue this work of substitution up to the limits of the recommendations of the Committee, and to see that it is entirely and honestly
carried out in every Department of the Government service, and to make sure that no single opportunity is overlooked where it is possible to find employment in the Government service for an ex-service man.

Mr. G. W. H. JONES: I wish to raise an extremely important subject, and apologise for having to do it at such a late hour. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has made out a most convincing case for the side which he represents, and although he has shown that the Government have done a great deal, we ought not to rest satisfied until we are sure that the Government have done all they can do. There is one thing that is apparent. It is quite clear that there are many things which could have been done which the Government have failed to do. The Financial Secretary told us that 70 per cent. of the permanent staff vacancies were being absorbed by temporary ex-service men, but that only applies to the clerical staff and all the higher branches are closed to the ex-service men.

Mr. YOUNG: That is not so.

Mr. JONES: Then I will put it that no privilege was given to the ex-service man and has not now been given by which he can enter the higher branches. There, is an age limit for all those branches, and if an ex-service man is above that age no facilities are given and he is shut out.

Mr. YOUNG: I am quite sure that the hon. Member does not wish to mislead the House. So far from no privilege having been given to the ex-service men, hitherto the appointments to the higher branches have been confined to ex-service men.

Mr. JONES: It is no good telling these men that they have as good a chance as other men, because that is not the case. I hope that the Government will give a chance to the ex-service man who is now doing most important work. He gave up valuable civil employment to help the country. He cannot go back. Let him have a chance of getting to the higher branches and getting pay which is something above £80 and a generous bonus.
The Financial Secretary defended this examination paper. The questions which have been read out are selections from 14 tests. Each test consists of six to nine
questions. The candidate is not allowed to look at them until a whistle goes, and he is allowed two minutes in which to answer the six or nine. I ask hon. Members who have had any experience of examinations is it fair to give that type of question to a man who has long passed the school age, has lost the examination habit, and is possibly some way below normal health, in addition. We know quite well the nervous strain. Under these special circumstances, when a man's whole career is involved it is monstrous to give 14 tests of that sort, and to call it an examination in general intelligence. I seriously doubt whether some Members of the Government, if these questions were flung at them, could answer them sufficiently satisfactorily for some examiners. The Financial Secretary said there is an appeal above that. They can go to the Investigation Board, and if they have failed they can be allowed to take a position. I do not know what the value of that is, but I find that only 1,300 cases have been passed by the Investigation Board and 16,000 rejected, and out of the 1,300 allowed by the Investigation Board only 700 have been taken up by the Government. When the Arbitration Board approved the Lytton Committee they wrote a letter to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury saying there would be many hard cases and suggesting that the Government should mitigate the hardship and make some concession in those individual cases. So far as I can ascertain not one single case has been helped on the lines indicated by the Arbitration Board, and if I am wrong on that I hope the Financial Secretary will put it right some time during the evening.
Among many things the Financial Secretary omitted to deal with was the question of the pension issue office. The House might like to know the figures. There are 5,000 non-service staff in the office, and against that there are 1,000 competent ex-service men to-day with previous experience in the Civil Service awaiting reallocation on the books of the Joint Substitution Board. Do the Government think it is satisfactory that there should be 5,000 non-service staff in the office when they have 1,000 men on the books fully qualified and awaiting employment? As the
Financial Secretary is so fond of the Lytton Committee, he will forgive me reminding him that the Lytton Committee found this Department was specially suitable for the employment of disabled ex-service men.
May I say a word in regard to the question of the intelligence officers who have been appointed lately, because I think the conduct of the Government Departments in this matter has been nothing short of a public scandal. There are many men fully qualified to discharge these duties. It is not disputed. They do not get the post, but someone who is a non-service man who can pull the strings in the office gets the job. It is not only one Department that is at fault. I find the Ministry of Health is another. They have appointed a non-service man as intelligence officer, and they have taken good care that he shall not be shifted, because they have put him on the permanent staff. The Pensions Ministry, whom we should expect to be a little more particular, have appointed a non-service man. They have given him a five years' agreement, so he is pretty safe for some time to come. The War Office have some of these non-service intelligence officers. They refuse to displace them. They say they are only temporary, and it is not worth while to shift them. It is a little strange, because one of the officers of the Department is putting men on the permanent staff, another is given five years, and the War Office say it is not worth while interfering because the job is a short one. The worst case is that which has been mentioned by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), of which I have some personal knowledge. Captain Rusham was engaged as a journalist before the War, and resigned his position in order to join up. He joined with his brother, who was killed. He was himself seriously wounded, and to-day has 40 per cent. disability and is attending hospital. It is admitted that he has all the qualifications for the post. He has journalistic experience, and he was practically employed for two years in the Air Ministry as President of the Publicity Department. He has excellent testimonials wherever he has been. He was on the books of the Joint Substitution Board. The Post Office never went to the Board at all. They made no
inquiries from anyone as to whether an ex-service man was available, and they appointed a young man who was never in the Army.

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): This man Chapman tried to join at the first moment of the War, but was not able to join.

Mr. JONES: The right Inn. Gentleman is not following the point. The Government pledge was not to the men who wanted to join, but to the men who did join. It is a pure shuffle to talk about a man doing his best to join. The fact is that he did not join. The right hon. Gentleman will admit that they never made any inquiries fox ex-service men. Is there not one in all the country capable of filling this post, and if there is, why did they put Chapman there? It is this kind of thing that makes ex-service men sick. It is all very well for the Government to say they are doing their best, and they are doing this, that and the other. When you have these grave abuses going on, and you have Members on the Treasury Bench defending them by an evasion of the sort we have just had and have had for months from the Postmaster-General, it is no wonder that people are discontented. I do not know what power the House has in such a case. I trust it will not be allowed to stop where it is. It is an outrage on all the pledges the Government have given and on the wishes of this House and the country that a young man who has never been in the Army should be pitchforked into a job, in the place of a man who has suffered from serious disability. As I understand, it does not stop at the Post Office. In the Board of Trade they employ accountants. Quite recently they have discharged a chartered accountant, an ex-service man, and are retaining a non-service man to do the same work. I should like to give the House particulars about the Air Ministry did the extra-ordinary things that are going on there, where you have a superintendent who completely flouts every direction of the Government given in regard to substitution of service for non-service labour. Direction after direction has been given by the head office for the substitution of ex-service tracers in place of women tracers, and not a single man has been taken on. He dismisses when he likes,
and engages without going to the Joint Substitution Board, and so on. In the last two or three months there have been 500 discharges from the gradings, and not a single appointment has been given in any one case to an ex-service man. I have avoided going into detail, because of the lateness of the hour. I hope the House is not going to let this matter rest where it is. I think the Government want to do the right thing, but they have one or two weak-kneed Ministers, who are afraid to stand up to officials who do not want to do the right thing. There are in the Government Departments officials who never went to the War, who stopped at home and did very well, while others were fighting, who object to this Government pledge, and are doing their best to prevent its being carried out. I hope the House will see that the Ministers get rid of the recalcitrant officials, or else that the House will get rid of the Ministers.

Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: It has been part of my duty to receive a good many deputations of ex-service men on this particular question, and, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, I have been in correspondence with the Department on the matter. The impression left upon my mind by these deputations is that there is very little satisfaction on the part of the men whom I have received. They certainly think that the Lytton Committee was not properly seised of the position the ex-service men had taken up in regard to the matter before pronouncing their decision; that the question of the initial salary was not sufficiently referred to them, and that no evidence at all was given on the subject by these men, who were not afforded an opportunity of stating their case. They feel that that is a great hardship and ought to be put right. I also had brought, to my notice the fact that the Arbitration Board itself called attention to the exceptional cases which exist and which ought to be treated in an exceptional way. Altogether, the impression left upon my mind—I have tried to impress it on the Chancellor of

the Exchequer and others concerned—is that, at all events, the matter has been left in a very unsatisfactory position. It is very desirable indeed to get it settled, as it apparently can be settled, by appointing some sort of Committee in order to give these men the opportunity, which they have not had, of stating their case, and of having it reviewed. I hope it will be possible to get this clone.

Mr. FORD: It is out of no opposition to the Government that we are making these criticisms. The Civil Service is a great service. It had many gallant men who went out and fought, and a great many other men who did not go out and fight. Age, infirmity, Conscientious scruples, and anything else prevented them doing so—perhaps they were indispensables. I will not offend my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches by using the term "trade union," but the Civil Service is a close corporation, and I think that many of its members have a great objection to the intrusion into its ranks of people who have not been brought up in its traditions. Ministers, also, are, to a certain extent, at the mercy of their permanent officials. I do not think they are always informed, as they ought to be, of the facts. Then difficulties arise, which are very difficult for them to brush aside. I believe we are doing our duty, and also a service to the Government, in pressing for the appointment of this Committee. The Government do not realise the way in which we who live in the constituencies, where this is a very vital matter, are inundated with cases of gross injustice and hardship. They do not realise the feeling of the country, as well as the feeling in this House. We are doing the Government a service in pressing them, before it is too late, to take the very reasonable and moderate step of appointing a Select Committee to go into the whole question, and to set these obvious injustices right, so that real justice may be done to the men who have suffered for their country.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 110; Noes, 30.

Division No. 272.]
AYES.
[11.55 p m


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Atkey, A. R.
Barlow, Sir Montague


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Barnett, Major Richard W.


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Barnston, Major Harry


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bollairs, Commander Carlyon W.


Birchall, J. Dearman
Harmon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Robinson, Sir T, (Lanes., Stretford)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hood, Sir Joseph
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hopkins, John W. W.
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Briggs, Harold
Houfton, John Plowright
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Bruton, Sir James
Jameson, John Gordon
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)


Cautley, Henry Strother
Kidd, James
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Stewart, Gershom


Churchman Sir Arthur
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Sugden, W. H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Sutherland, Sir William


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lort-Williams, J.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Dawson, Sir Philip
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Vickers, Douglas


Doyle, N. Grattan
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Wallace, J.


Ednam, Viscount
Mason, Robert
Walters, Rt. Hon Sir John Tudor


Evans, Ernest
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Waring, Major Walter


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Murchison, C. K.
White, Col. G. D (Southport)


Flldes, Henry
Neal, Arthur
Whitla, Sir William


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wise, Frederick


Forrest, Walter
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Parker, James
Worthington Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Parkinson, Sir Albert L. (Blackpool)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Younger, Sir George


Gregory, Holman
Perkins, Walter Frank



Gritten, W. G. Howard
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Remer, J. R.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. Dudley Ward.


Hailwood, Augustine
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hogge, James Myles
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Ammon, Charles George
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Banton, George
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thomas, Brig-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Lawson, John James
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Windsor, Viscount


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Naylor, Thomas Ellis



Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)
Mr. Sutton and Mr. Penry Williams.


Gee, Captain Robert
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)




Lords Amendment to Commons Amendment agreed to.

EXPIRING LAWS BILL.

Order for consideration of Lords Amendment read.

Motion made, and Question, "That the

THIRD SCHEDULE.


ENACTMENTS CONTINUED.


PART I.


1. Session and Chapter.
2. Short Title.
3. How far continued.
4. Amending Acts.


(7) 4 & 5 Geo. 5. c. 3
The Grey Seals Protection Act, 1914.
The whole Act,
—

Lords Amendment be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Shortt.]

Lords Amendment considered accordingly.

Lords Amendment:

After paragraph beginning "4 & 5 Geo. 5. c. 3" Insert:


1.
2.
3.
4.


Session and Chapter.
Short Title.
How far continued.
Amending Acts


4 & 5 Geo. 5. c. 78.
The Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1914.
So far as it relates:
5 & 6 Geo. 5 c 17,




(a) to enforcing the lapse of policies of insurance, and
6 & 7 Geo. 5. c 13.




(b) to orders made by any court before the thirty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty two.
6 & 7 Geo. 5. c. 18.





7 & 8 Geo. 5. c. 25.





9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 64.





10 Geo. 5. c. 5.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME OFFICE (Mr. Shortt): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a small matter, but it is a matter of some importance to policy holders. By the Emergency Act policies on which the premiums are in arrear do not lapse. Unfortunately that expires on the 31st August this year. Meantime, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, which would only protect the industrial policy holders, we have had a great many negotiations and conferences, and now, I think, that we have arrived at something like agreement. Unfortunately, we arrived at that agreement too late to bring in a Bill at this portion of the Session. I hope to be able to introduce it in the Autumn Session. Meantime there would be a period in which the policy holders might run very grave danger. All that this Amendment seeks to do is to protect the policy holders during the period between 31st August and the time when the Bill is passed. The Bill which we propose to bring in would, if passed, repeal this provision, but it will be in the interval a proper protection for the policy holders. This Amendment is merely intended to protect the policy holder between the 31st August and the period when we can bring in the Bill.

Mr. ACLAND: I quite agree with the course the Government is taking. My only comment is that the anticipation of my right hon. Friend as to what is likely to be possible in The Autumn is rather dim. He said he hoped to be able to
introduce legislation in the Autumn. If he could say it was his intention, and it was possible to do so, there would be a little more assurance. Could he make it a little more definite than that?

Mr. SHORTT: If it be possible, we shall certainly do so; but in any case this provision will protect the policy holder until we arc able to do it. If it be impossible in the Autumn—it is impossible for me to give a definite pledge as to that, as the right hon. Gentleman knows—this will continue long enough to enable it to be done. The intention is that this Bill should be introduced and, if possible, passed in the Autumn. The Bill is drafted and prepared.

Mr. ACLAND: My only point is that it is not desirable that this should be left for another whole year.

Mr. SHORTT: I agree.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.

Resolved,
That the statement of the estimated income and expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and of Travers' Foundation for the year 1923 he approved."—[Commander Eyres-Monsell.]

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS, 1882 TO 1919.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under
the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Cheriton and the parishes of Saltwood, Newington, and Hawkinge, in the rural district of Elham, all in the county of Kent, which was presented on the 11th day of July, 1922, be approved."—[Mr. Neal.]

ALLOTMENTS BILL [Lords].

Ordered, That the Lords Reason for disagreeing with one of the Commons Amendments, and Lords Amendment. proposed in lieu of one of the Commons Amendments disagreed to by the Lords, and Lords Amendment to one of the Commons Amendments to be considered forthwith.—[Sir Arthur Boscawen.]

Lords Reason for disagreeing with one of the Commons Amendments, and the Lords Amendment proposed in lieu of one of the Commons Amendments, disagreed to by the Lords, and Lords Amendment to one of the Commons Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 7.—(Amendment of statutory provisions as to compulsory acquisition of land for allotments, 9 & 10 Geo. 5, c. 59, 8 Edw. 7, c. 36.)

(1) The restrictions imposed by Section forty-one of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, on the compulsory acquisition of land which has been acquired by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking shall not apply to the hiring of land by a council of a borough or urban district or by the council of a county to whom the powers and duties of an urban district council have been transferred under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section twenty-four of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, for the purpose of providing allotment gardens:
Provided that every such hiring shall be subject to a condition enabling—

(a) the corporation or company to resume possession of the land when required by the corporation or company for the purpose (not being the use of land for agriculture) for which it was acquired by the corporation or company; and
(b) nothing in this Sub-section shall prejudice the protection given by the said Section forty-one to land which is the property of a local authority.

Commons Amendment:

At beginning of the Clause, insert a new Sub-section:
(1) The period during which an Order for the compulsory acquisition of land for allotments is, under Section one of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, exempted
from the requirement of submission to and confirmation by the Minister is hereby extended to the expiration of six calendar months after the passing of this Act.

Lords Message:

The Lords disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons, and for the disagreement they assign the following reason: Because it is not desirable to extend the period during which local authorities are empowered to make orders for the acquisition of land compulsorily without confirmation by the Minister.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I beg to move, "That this House doth not insist upon its Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed."
If that Motion be agreed to, I propose to move an Amendment to the Bill in lieu thereof. I may be allowed to explain that under the Land Settlement Facilities Act, power was taken to enable local authorities to acquire land without confirmation, in view of the necessity of getting land quickly for the purpose of small holdings and allotments. In view of the fact that there will be a necessity for acquiring a good deal of land for allotments in the next few months, because land, under the D.O.R.A. Regulations, will have to be given up next March, it was proposed in this Hill, as originally introduced, that this power of acquiring land without confirmation, as regards allotments, should be extended for one year. In another place, this Clause was deleted. When the Bill came to this House, on my Motion it was re-inserted, but with a limitation that the extension should be only for six months instead of one year. In another place this new proposal has also been deleted. In the circumstances there are three courses which I might adopt. I might agree with the Lords in their Amendment. In that case, we should throw away altogether a power which, although I do not attach very much importance to it, will be useful as minimising the delay in acquiring land in the next few months. I might disagree with the action taken in another place. If I did that, and if the other place insisted on what they had done, there would be a complete deadlock between the two Houses, and the Bill would be lost. There is a third course which I propose to adopt and that is to
ask the House to send back the Clause with an Amendment, and the Amendment is that instead of extending the time to six months from the passing of the Measure, that is to say to next February, the extension should be to 31st December of this year. That does not give us quite as much time as I had hoped for, but at the same time it will give local authorities sufficient time to exercise their powers.

Mr. AGLAND: I think the Minister of Agriculture has behaved wisely in this matter. I am not particularly pleased with the Bill; still, I imagine, it is not wished to lose the Bill and I think it will be of advantage to the allotment holders. It would not be worth risking the Bill over this matter which is not considerable. I am glad the Minister is not agreeing with the Lords. As a matter of fact, the course he has suggested to the House is one which I suggested to him, when he was kind enough to consult me about it, and I hope the House will approve of it. I feel certain if they do, the Lords will not further insist, and that on this compromise the matter will be adjusted.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I desire to make the most strenuous possible protest against the action taken in another place in connection with this matter. In March next a quarter of a million allotment holders of this country have, under the D.O.R.A. Regulations, to give up their allotments. Both the Minister here and the Under-Secretary in another place, in introducing this Bill, gave, as one of the principal reasons for the Measure, that it was to secure allotments for these quarter of a million men who have to give up their holdings in March next. There was a Clause in the Bill giving at least 12 months to local authorities to procure other allotments in place of those that had to be given up. In the other place that was deleted altogether. The Minister then introduced a Clause putting the period at six months. In Committee, I questioned the Minister as to whether that time would be sufficient, and he said that it would, but that it would, perhaps, be barely sufficient. The proposal now before the House is that the period should be reduced to four months, I cannot conceal from the House my great apprehension that this period will
not be sufficient. I doubt very much whether during the next four months it will be possible for local authorities to conform to this, and while I cannot disagree with the course my right hon. Friend is taking, I do want to point out to the House that the position in which we are put to-day has been caused by the vote of only 30 gentlemen in another place, to a large extent, I believe, utterly irresponsible to anybody. I have the very gravest doubts as to whether the position is sufficiently secure. I agree that we are in a very difficult position to-night, because if this matter be prolonged further, there is very great risk of not securing this Bill at all. It is only that consideration which, as far as I am concerned, makes me agree with the pro-position before the House. But I do desire to put before my right hon. Friend the necessity, if this Measure be passed, of immediately communicating with the local authorities, and asking them to take the earliest possible steps to put this Section into operation.

Mr. BANTON: What guarantee have we that the Lords will accept the amended Amendment? We all regret that the Lords have put this obstacle in the way. The allottee and the local authorities have a right to be considered, and this senseless Amendment of the Lords ought to be strongly protested against by this House. We are helpless in the matter, because we dare not let the Bill drop, owing to the great loss it would be, not only to the allottees, but to the whole country. Therefore I join in the protest against the action of the House of Lords.

Amendment made, in lieu of the Commons Amendment, to which the Lords have disagreed: At the beginning of the Clause insert the words
(1) The period during which an Order for the compulsory acquisition of land for allotments is, under Section one of the Land Settlement (Facilities), Act, 1919, exempted from the requirement of submission to, and confirmation by, the Minister is hereby extended to the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-two."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Commons Amendment:

NEW CLAUSE.—(Penalty for damage to allotment cultivated as a garden, &c.)

Sub-section (4) of Section twenty-one of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919
(which imposes a penalty on a person causing damage to crops growing on an allotment cultivated as a garden), shall extend to damage to an allotment cultivated as a garden or any crops or fences or buildings thereon and accordingly that Subsection shall have effect as if instead of the words "crops growing on an allotment cultivated as a garden" there were inserted the words "allotment cultivated as a garden or any crops or fences or buildings thereon.

Disagreed to by the Lords, who propose in lieu thereof the following new Clause:

(Penalty for damage to an allotment garden.)

"(1) Any person who by any act done without lawful authority or by negligence causes damage to any allotment garden or any crops or fences or buildings thereon shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding £5, but this provision shall not apply unless notice of this provision is conspicuously displayed on or near the allotment garden.

(2) Sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, is hereby repealed."

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, "That this House doth not insist upon its Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed, and agree to the Lords Amendment proposed in lieu thereof."
This is merely a drafting Amendment. On the Report stage the House agreed to the insertion of an Amendment, and a new Clause was inserted by this House. It has been redrafted by another place, and put into more suitable language.

Commons Amendment:

After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause:

(Action in default of certain local authorities.)

If it appears to the Minister, in relation to the London County Council or the council of any county borough or metropolitan borough, after holding a local inquiry at which the council, or such other persons as the person holding the inquiry may, in his discretion, think fit to allow, shall be permitted to appear and be heard, that the council have failed to satisfy to the extent to which it is reasonably practicable, having regard to the provisions of the Allotments Acts, the demand for allotment gardens to be provided by the council the Minister may, by Order, transfer to the Small Holdings Commissioners all or any of the powers of the council relating to the provision of allotment gardens and the provisions of Section twenty-four of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, shall apply as if references to the Commissioners were substituted for references to the county council and with such other adaptations as may be made by the Order.

Lords Amendment to Commons Amendment:

Leave out the word "or" ["or such other persons"], and insert "and."

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of 25th July.

Adjourned at Twenty Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.